Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1398 of 2007 (Old No.39783 of 1999) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through its Regional Manager, Nainital and another. ………….. Petitioners Versus Rajendra Singh Negi and another. ………….. Respondents. ………………… Sri V.K.Bisht, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioners. Sri B.D.Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Date: July 24,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned award dated 30.08.1998 passed by the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No.57of 1992, which was published on 05.06.1999. 2. Prior to the reorganization of existing State of Uttar Pradesh, a dispute was referred, vide reference order dated 21.04.1992/30.09.1992 under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was registered before the Industrial Tribunal as Adjudication Case No.57 of 1992. The reference was made in the following terms:- “Whether the removal of workman Sri Rajendra Singh Negi (driver) from service by employers is legal and justified. If no, what benefit and relief the workman is entitled to get and with what details?” 3. The dispute was raised by the workman. Notices were issued to the parties. They filed their written statements and objection and led their evidence before the Labour Court. 4. The workman denied the allegations leveled against him. According to the workman, he was in regular service on the ill-fated day i.e. 14.03.1987. After performing his duty the respondent No.1 workman who was driver in the bus, took the bus ahead from its destination for the purposes of cleaning the same. After going about 400 metres it fell into the ditch. 5. The employers took the plea before the Labour Court that admittedly the respondent No.1/workman took the bus beyond prescribed route and after duty hours and the said but met with an accident causing loss to the petitioner Corporation due to irresponsible act of workman. The inquiry was held against the petitioner and opportunity of hearing was provided to him. In the inquiry all the charges were proved against the respondent No.1/workman and he was removed from service. 6. The respondent No.1/workman contended his case that accident happened unfortunately and not deliberately. After reaching the destination it was found that the bus was very dirty due to vomiting done by some of the passengers. The driver and conductor deputed in 2 the bus have to sleep in the bus in night so it was very necessary to clean the bus and there was no source of water on the place of but stop hence the but was taken away to some distance. Unfortunately this accident took place when the bus could reach only about 400 metres away from the but stop. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned award. The Labour Court has discussed the oral as well as documentary evidence produced the case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered opinion that the award does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 8. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma,J.) 24.07.2008 P.Singh 3