COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 1261/2007 (Old No. 30131/1995) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation …….Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Others. …….Respondents Sri V.K. Bist, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Gopal Narain, learned Counsel for the workman/respondent no. 3. 30th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. The validity of the award dated 23.1.1995 made under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. The workman/respondent no. 3 was engaged in the petitioner’s department on the post of Cleaner on 26.11.1976. His services were terminated by the order dated 30.8.1983 on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty. Workman raised an industrial dispute and the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The following reference was made: Whether the action of the employer in terminating the services of its employee Ganga Prasad Rana S/o Sri Ramdhani Rana, Cleaner w.e.f. 30.8.1983 is proper and/or legal? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? 2 3. After considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court answered the aforesaid reference in affirmative in favour of the workman/respondent no. 3 and against the petitioner and ordered for reinstatement of the workman along with 50 per cent back wages. 4. The Labour Court has recorded a clear cut finding that the leave was duly sanctioned to the workman for the period 16.1.1983 to 20.1.1983 by the Senior Foreman of the department and thereafter he proceeded on leave and left for Bengal along with his wife as she was not keeping well. After expiry of the leave period the workman did not report on his duties. Thereafter notices and chargesheet were sent to the workman but the Labour Court has held that the same were not sent on the relevant address of the workman and without giving any opportunity to defend himself, the services of the workman were terminated. The enquiry against the workman could have been held after his reporting on his duties but the department chose otherwise and awarded the severest punishment of termination. 5. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and the same does not require any interference by this Court. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not deem it proper to award any back wages to the workman/respondent no. 3. Since the workman has retired, therefore, it would also not be proper to hold any disciplinary enquiry now against him. The impugned award dated 23.1.1995 is modified to the extent indicated above. 3 6. In the result, writ petition is partly allowed. The workman/respondent no. 3 shall not be paid any back wages and the amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner towards it shall be released in favour of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 30.7.2008 Prabodh