IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 7201 of 2001 (M/S) (Old No. 14978 of 1985) [ Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. 74 / 1, Rajpur Raod, Dehradun. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. Murti Ram Painuli C/o Mastan Singh Pawar R/o Andhra Ashram, Muni-Ki-Reti Rishikesh. 2. The Labour Court, Bareilly. ...………… Respondents Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No. 1. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 19.06.1985, passed by the Labour Court, Bareilly, in Adjudication Case No. 166 of 1981, whereby the respondent No. 1 Murti Ram Painuli has been directed to be reinstated in service and it has been further directed that he be paid entire back wages. 2 2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one turned up on behalf of respondent No. 1, even after notices were sent to him by this Court, as such, the case was heard ex-parte. This writ petition is received by transfer to this Court from the Allahabad High Court under Section 35 of the U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000 (Central Act No. 29 of 2000), for its disposal, and notices were issued by this Court afresh. 3) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 Murti Ram Painuli was a driver with the petitioner Corporation i.e. Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited. He was deputed duty to take the bus from Rishikesh to Kathmandu (Nepal) and other places. The respondent No. 1 used to harass the tourists travelling in the bus by getting stopped bus in jungle or midway. He used to make false excuses that the fuel is finished in the bus. This caused lot of harassment to the tourists, who on enquiry found that there was sufficient fuel in the tank of the bus. On receiving certain complaints from the tourists, the explanation of respondent No. 1 was taken by the petitioner Corporation in which he admitted his misconduct. The petitioner Corporation after noticing more than one such misconducts on the part of the respondent No. 1 dispensed with his services, as the same were not required with the Corporation. The petitioner Corporation’s case in the writ petition is this that the termination of the services of the respondent No. 1 could have been challenged only 3 before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, and the matter was not covered under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is contended that the reference of the industrial dispute was wrongly made by the State Government to the Labour Court to examine the validity of the termination order dated 16.05.1980, passed against the respondent No. 1. As such, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, is challenged on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to hold that the retrenchment of respondent No. 1 was illegal and he was entitled to reinstatement with back wages. 4) After the writ petition was admitted by the Allahabad High Court, a counter affidavit was filed by the respondent No. 1 before said Court, in which it is stated by the answering respondent that the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to decide the industrial dispute referred to it, and there is no illegality committed by the Labour Court. It is denied by the answering respondent No. 1 that he had committed any misconduct, as alleged by the petitioner Corporation. It has been further pleaded that the retrenchment of the answering respondent was illegal. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to Section 6 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, which provides that no suit shall lie against the State Government or any local authority or any statutory corporation or company for any relief in respect of any matter relating to employment at the 4 instance of any person who is or has been a public servant, including the person specified in clauses (a) to (g) of sub-Section (4) of Section 1 of the Act. On perusal of the provision referred on behalf of the petitioner, this Court finds that expressly it does not oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in respect of an industrial dispute. 6) Learned counsel for the petitioner further drew attention of this Court to Annexure –5 to the writ petition which are copies of the admissions made by the respondent No. 1 himself relating to his conduct. Copies of the written statement given by the respondent No. 1 in the presence of witnesses, copies of which are annexed as Annexure –5 to the writ petition, discloses that the respondent No. 1 has admitted that even though there was sufficient fuel in the bus he stopped the bus in the midway and told the tourists that the diesel is finished. It is also admitted by him that twice the tourists after examining the fuel tank found that there was sufficient fuel and there was extra fuel kept in jerkins also for the emergency. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was a grave misconduct on the part of the respondent No. 1 to harass the tourists on false excuse and thereby attempt was made to make unlawful gain. It is further contended that the petitioner Corporation, is a self financing Public Sector Undertaking, engaged in the promotion of tourism, and it cannot be compelled to continue with such an employee. Learned counsel for the 5 petitioner further contended that the order of termination is lawful as respondent No. 1 was given one month’s salary in lieu of one month’s notice under the service conditions in which the respondent No. 1 was engaged with the petitioner Corporation. 7) Referring to clause (s) of Section 2 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is argued that ‘retrenchment’ does not include the punishment inflicted on the employee by way of disciplinary action. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the termination order dated 16.05.1980, was infact, nothing but the punishment order passed against the respondent No. 1, after he was found guilty of the misconduct, as such, it cannot be said to be retrenchment. On perusal of the record I find the same to be correct. 8) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the annexures filed with the writ petition, this Court finds that the Labour Court has erred in law in holding that the termination of the respondent No. 1 amounted to retrenchment and the same was in violation of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That being so, the impugned award, passed by the Labour Court, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award, passed by the Labour Court, is quashed. No order as to costs. [ (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. September 09, 2009. H. Negi