1 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2013/1995 R.S.R.T.C., Bharatpur Vs. Gambhir Singh Date of order : 24.02.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.M K Verma for petitioner. Mr. Karanpal Singh for respondent-workman. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. On 11.02.2009 none appeared for the parties and on 12.02.2009, counsel for the petitioner was ready to argue the case but the counsel for the respondent has taken time. Counsel for the petitioner-management submits that respondent-workman was appointed on 19th of June 1979 on the post of Conductor and his services were terminated on 21st of November 1979. Although there was an allegation of carrying 5 passenger without ticket but the services of the respondent-workman have been terminated simplicitor as per the term of contract. The Labour Court while considering the case of the petitioner has held that no domestic inquiry has been conducted in respect of the aforesaid charge and since the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal 2 case, therefore, he has rightly filed the application for reference again and otherwise also there was no inquiry, therefore, there could not have been any termination without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, more particularly Section 25. The award was answered in affirmative on 24.10.1994. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the services of the respondent-workman were terminated on account of the stipulation in the term of appointment and not on account of carry passenger without ticket and further there was a stipulation in the appointment order to the effect that the termination clause can be invoked in such contingency, therefore, it is not retrenchment. Counsel for the respondent-workman supported the award dated 24.10.1994. I have considered the aforesaid rival submissions of the parties and also gone through the contents of writ petition. In my view once the charge is levelled then the inquiry is necessary. As in this case the inquiry was not conducted then the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act are applicable. I find no error in the judgment of the labour court, so far as 3 the reinstatement of the respondent-workman is concerned. However, in the facts and circumstances, since there is a delay of 8 years in re- agitating the issue, therefore, it would not be in the fitness of the things to award the back wages to the respondent-workman. The respondent-workman is not entitled for any back wages, although he will be entitled for any other consequential benefit of continuity of service as well as notional fixation. Accordingly the award dated 24.10.1994 of the labour Court is modified as under :- (i). that the termination of the respondent workman dated 21.11.1979 is held illegal and the petitioner will not be entitled for the arrears of salary. However, his pay will be notionally fixed and further he will be entitled for consequential benefit of seniority. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA),J. Gandhi H/20