ASHOK KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, DEHRADUN
LAWS(UTN)-2013-2-48
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on February 28,2013

ASHOK KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, DEHRADUN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.K.BIST, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) PRESENT petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the award -dated 18.09.1996 passed by the respondent no.1. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondent no.2 to reinstate the petitioner and pay him back wages alongwith other benefits.
(3.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated, are that petitioner was appointed in the respondent no.2 establishment, namely, M/s Quality Restaurant on 01.02.1979, he was employed in another unit, namely, Quality Ice Cream. In February 1989, the petitioner was again employed in the Quality Restaurant. On 12.02.1991 and 01.06.1991, two show cause notices were issued to the petitioner, and thereafter, a domestic enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and on 30.11.1991, his services were terminated. Thereafter, an industrial dispute was raised and the State Government referred the matter to the respondent no.1 under Section 4 -K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent no.1 proceeded against the petitioner and passed the award -dated 18.09.1996 in Adjudication Case no.160/92. Against the award -dated 18.09.1996 passed by the respondent no.1, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the employer has illegally terminated the services of the petitioner and the respondent no.1, without applying his mind, passed the award against the petitioner. He submitted that the respondent no.1, framed issues and without applying the correct facts and evidence filed by the petitioner, proceeded against the petitioner and passed award -dated 18.09.1996 and the same is illegal and non -est. He submitted that the award -dated 18.09.1996 is based on surmises and conjectures and the same has no sanctity in the eyes of law. He submitted that the petitioner filed certain documents in support of his case and adduced some grounds also, but the respondent no.1 did not consider the same and the findings recorded by him are totally perverse and irrational. He argued that the learned Presiding Officer erred in law by not awarding compensation to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is a poor man, having no means of his subsistence and his whole family is on the verge of starvation. He contended that the impugned award passed by the respondent no.1 is illegal, void and is liable to be quashed. He also submitted that the legal question invlolved in the present case, if not decided, may be kept open.;


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