S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition on 18.01.2011 when the arguments were heard and judgment was reserved, following order was passed: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Judgment reserved. The only point which has been argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that services of workman Respondent No. 1 (who was a conductor) were terminated after domestic enquiry and labour court has not recorded any finding that domestic enquiry was not fair. Learned Counsel for the Respondent workman has argued that documents pertaining to enquiry were not submitted by the Petitioner before the labour court, hence it could not be said that the enquiry was fair. The finding of the labour court that A.R.M. could not terminate the services has not been supported by learned Counsel for the workman Respondent. In this regard, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that after the Act No. 15 of 1987, A.R.M. became the appointing authority of the conductor.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against award dated 17.12.1996 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Varanasi, in adjudication case No. 71 of 1993. The matter which referred to the labour court was as to whether action of Petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman Kashi Ram Respondent No. 1 who was a conductor w.e.f. 12.04.1991 was just and valid or not. Charge sheet was given to the workman on 07.11.1989, the charges mentioned in the charge sheet were that on 06.10.1988 at the time of checking one passenger was found without ticket, on 11.09.1988 at the time of checking two passengers wee found ticket less, on 10.01.198 two passengers were found without ticket and on 09.01.1989, 23 passengers were found without ticket. Domestic inquiry was held in which charges were found proved and thereupon services were terminated on 12.04.1991. Before labour court the workman filed some documents on 08.02.1996 as mentioned in the award wherein it has also been mentioned that employers did not file any document. Thereafter it is mentioned that on 22.03.1996 statement of workman was recorded in which he denied the charges and that inspite of several dates no witness was examined by the employers. It has also been mentioned that on the date on which award was passed i.e. 17.12.1996 and which was the date fixed in the case for argument, the representative of the employer asked for opportunity to file evidence which was denied. The entire finding is in two or three lines to the effect that the proceedings of domestic inquiry were neither filed before the labour court nor they were served/proved and as inspite of repeated opportunities neither any documentary evidence was filed nor oral by the employer, hence, the basis of termination did not exist. The written statement filed by the employer was refused to be taken into consideration on the ground that permission to file written statement had been granted on payment of Rs. 40/ -as costs and the cost had not been paid. It was also held that as the written statement by the employer was not to be taken into consideration and as the workman had stated on oath that charges levelled against him were not correct hence termination was illegal. Ultimately reinstatement with full backwages was directed. The award given by Sri J.N. Dwivedi Presiding Officer of the labour court concerned is thoroughly unsatisfactory. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has argued that employer himself did not ask for opportunity to adduce the evidence. This question is not involved in the case. The stage to seek permission to prove the charges before the labour court comes only when labour court holds the inquiry to be unfair. In the impugned award there is not a whisper regarding such a finding. In para 4 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that "no reliable evidence was given against the Respondent No. 1 it was only relied on the report given by officer concerned who were the part of the prosecution"
(3.) IN para 7 of the counter affidavit it is mentioned that " labour court required from the Petitioner to given any credible and reliable evidence which can establish the case against the Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner was totally fail to do so".;