ANIL KUMAR SAXENA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NAINITAL
LAWS(UTN)-2012-8-38
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on August 09,2012

ANIL KUMAR SAXENA Appellant
VERSUS
District Magistrate Nainital and Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri M.C. Kandpal, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.S. Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondents -company.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as an Accounts Clerk in the year 1976 in the respondents sugar factory by an order of 1st October, 1978. His services were terminated, against which, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the award was given directing reinstatement with continuity of services. This award was challenged by the employers but during its pendency the petitioner was reinstated on 31st March, 1981 without prejudice to the rights of the employers. In 1986, one Sri C.P. Srivastava was appointed as an Accounts Clerk who was given promotion as an Assistant Accountant Grade -1 on 19th March, 1991. This became the genesis of the present dispute. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was eventually referred for adjudication to a Labour Court being Adjudication Case No. 9 of 1993. The terms of the reference order was: - Whether the employers were justified in not promoting the workman 'petitioner' as an Assistant Accountant Grade -1? If not, to what relief the petitioner is entitled to? During the pendency of the adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner committed misconduct and was suspended. A chargesheet was issued to him on 11th February, 1993, 15th February, 1993 and 2nd March, 1993. Inspite of the service of the chargesheet, no reply was given. Consequently, an Inquiry Officer was appointed who also issued a notice and, inspite of the receipt of the notice, the petitioner did not come forward in his defence. Consequently, the inquiry proceeded exparte and an exparte inquiry report was submitted on 15th June, 1993. Based on the inquiry report, a show cause notice dated 6th June, 1993 was issued by the disciplinary authority to show cause. Inspite of the issuance of the show cause notice and, its receipt, the petitioner did not submit any reply. Accordingly, an order dated 22nd June, 1993 was passed terminating the services of the petitioner. In this order, the disciplinary authority clearly indicated that since another dispute related to the present dispute was pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, one month's wages in lieu of the notice was paid to the petitioner as provided u/S. 6 -E(2)(b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Simultaneously, the employer also moved an application before the Industrial Tribunal where Adjudication Case No. 9 of 1993 was pending for approval of their action.
(3.) THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the termination, filed the present writ petition before the Allahabad High Court questioning the validity and legality of the termination order dated 22.06.1993. Upon the creation of the High Court of Uttarakhand, the matter was transmitted to this Court.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.