- (1.) RESPONDENT No. 2, Shri Nahar Singh, was a labourer in the Pre -cast Concrete Factory under the control of J&K Minerals. It is alleged that the respondent was taken into custody for some offence by the Police and was in lockup for some 72 hours and as such the petitioner here in terminated his services by virtue of an order dated 26 -9 -1978. The matter was taken to the Reconciliation officer by respondent No. 2 the conciliation failed. The matter then came up before the Labour Court. The Labour Court presided over by Mr. Mohd Shaffi, recorded evidence, heard parties and then has to award on 14 -3 -1981. The Labour Court was of the view that mere registration of a case against a person was not enough for termination of his service It further said that if he had both convicted then his services could have been terminated. The learned labour Court was therefore, of the view that merely because the labourer was taken into custody by the police and a case had been registered against him, did not entitle the J&K Minerals to terminate his services. Though it was not in the order of termination yet in the writ petition it has been stated by the J&K Minerals that the labourer remained absent from duty without leave from 8th of September onwards. With regard to this point the Labour Court has recorded evidence. It was the case of the labourer before the Labour Court that he had sent an application for leave through one, Anchal Dass and he had applied for leave up -to 28th of September, .1978. This Anchal Dass was examined as a witness in the Labour Court and he has testified that he took the leave application to the concerned authority. It -was however, on 26 -9 -78 i.e. two days before the expiry of his leave that the services of the labourer were terminated. In its order mentioned above, the; learned Labour Court, therefore, held that the termination of the petitioners services Nahar Singh) respondent No :2 herein by the J&K Minerals was illegal, and directed that he was entitled to continue in service with full back wages
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record - I have not been shown any authority or rule which could justify the termination of a workman merely because a case has been registered by the police against him or that because he remained in police lock -up for some days. The mere registration of a case against a workman or an employee would not entitle the employer to terminate his services As in well known many cases which are false or which come out to be false at the end, fail or in many cases after proper investigation even the Police donot file the challan against the alleged accused person. It would to, therefore, right to say that more registration of a report against an employee would not entitle the employer to terminate his services. I am in full agreement with the views expressed in this regard by the learned Labour Court. The High Court was not to go into the question of fact as find out as to whether the workman had sent an application for - leave or not. It was the job of the Labour Court and it has come to the conclusion that the workman had sent an application for leave upto 28th of September, 1978 but his services were terminated a few days before the leave would have expired, On this account also I agree with the finding arrived at by the Labour Court.
(3.) IN view of the above the writ petition No: 264 of 1981 is dismissed and the petitioners are directed to re -instate Nahar Singh, respondent No: 2 herein end pay him all the back wages to which he -would be found entitled.;