STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF UTTARANCHAL Vs. MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
State Industrial Development Corporation Of Uttaranchal
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Since the controversy involved in all these writ petitions is same, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided together by this common order. All these writ petitions have been filed by The State Industrial Development Corporation of Uttaranchal (SIDCUL), which has been appointed as a nodal agency by the Government of Uttarakhand under Section 48 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 against the impugned awards dated 19-9-2003, 13-2-2004, 31-7-2003, 17-1-1998, 17-10-2003, 19-9-2003, 21-7-2003, 31-12-2003, 9-6-2003, 29-3-2003, 17-10-2003, 9-6-2003, 13-2-2004, 19-4-2003, 4-9-2003, 24-12-2003, 17-11-2003, 27-8-2003, 24-12-2003, 13-2-2004 and 29-6-1998 passed by the Labour Court and the orders by which the review/recall applications of the petitioner have been dismissed.
(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition are, the Government of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) under Section 48 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, vide its office memorandum dated 23.11.2004, appointed SIDCUL as a nodal agency to rehabilitate the Kashipur and Jaspur units and to do all the needful as was required to be done by Government of Uttarakhand.
(3.) The spinning mills at Jaspur and Kashipur were erstwhile units of U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. and were engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. The respondents/workmen were employed at Kashipur and Jaspur spinning mills and most of them were regular employees. Due to some undisciplined act and misbehavior against the management of the mills, charge-sheet was issued against the respondents/workmen and was also published in local newspapers under Standing Orders for gross misconduct requiring the respondents/workmen to appear before the Enquiry Officer on different dates, mentioned in the impugned orders. According to the petitioner, a proper and legal domestic enquiry was conducted and principles of natural justice and fair play were duly followed by the Enquiry Officer and all opportunity, as provided under the law, was also given to them. After enquiry, a detailed enquiry report was produced before the Punitive Officer in which the workmen/respondents were found guilty of the charges levelled against them and ultimately services of the respondents/workmen were terminated.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.