Allahabad High Court Upholds Reinstatement As Standard Remedy, But Percentage Of Back Wages To Be Subject To Facts

Background Facts

The respondent, a bus conductor, was carrying a bus in which an inspection was conducted by an officer of the petitioner, UPRTC. On inspection, it was found that some passengers were traveling without tickets from Jaipur to Ajmer. Thus, accordingly, the officer issued a charge-sheet to the conductor.

The respondent filed a reply denying the charges and clarified that his bus was intercepted by at toll plaza and he was in process of preparing the tickets, but the inspector took possession of the ATM Machine. Without considering his reply, a departmental enquiry was conducted. and a show cause notice was served to the respondent requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service.

Respondent submitted his reply; however, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service. Respondent, thus, initiated industrial dispute in the Labour Court which held that the departmental enquiry was unfair as it was done in violation of principles of natural justice. The Labour Court had set aside the order of dismissal of respondent and directed reinstatement of respondent along with 80% of the back wages from the date of termination.

Hence, a writ petition was filed by the UPRTC against the Labour Court order.

Arguments Advanced

The petitioner submitted, before the UP High Court, that the Labour Court award was not sustainable as parties' arguments and evidence on record has not been considered properly. Further, they contended that due diligence was followed in the disciplinary enquiry. They also submitted that considering that the respondent had caused loss to the corporation, he should not be entitled for reinstatement.

On the other hand, the respondent submitted that he has always been a dutiful employee, and that the departmental enquiry was arbitrary and unfair. He also claimed his dismissal was illegal as his case was not even considered. He relied on the Apex Court judgement, Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Others (2013) 10 SCC 324, stating that there is no illegality in awarding back wages along with other service benefits and reinstatement.

Findings of the Court

Justice Chandra Kumar Rai noted that the decision of Labour Court regarding reinstatement of respondent does not require any interference. Regarding issue of the back wages, the bench also referred to the Deepali Gundu Surwase case-

“"33. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:

• In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
• The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors…”

Considering the facts of the case and precedent set in Deepali Gundu Surwase, the petition by UPRTC was partly allowed. The High Court modified the impugned Labour Court award to the extent that the back wages awarded were reduced from 80% to 60%.

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For Petitioner(s): Sarveshwar Lal Srivastava, U.S. Singh Visen

For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Jamal Ahmad Khan, Omvir Singh Rajpoot, R.C. Maurya

Case Title: Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Sri Ram Prakash And Another

Click Here To Read/Download The Order