Anjani Kumar - (1.) -By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Nagar Palika, Bhadohi, has challenged award dated 13.7.1995 in Adjudication Case No. 261 of 1989.
(2.) THE following reference has been made and in pursuance thereof, parties have exchanged their pleadings and evidences : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... The case of the workman was that he was appointed as Chungi Moharrir with effect from 18.6.1975 by the order of the then Municipal Board and he has worked as a confirmed employee from 1.10.1975 to 1.11.1975. In addition to his work of Chungi Moharrir, the workman has also performed the job of cashier, but instead of giving the salary of cashier, he was given assurance that he will be appointed on the post of cashier. It has been further submitted by the workman that in the month of September, 1980, he fell seriously ill, therefore, he sent an application for leave but in the meantime, the Executive Officer had suspended the petitioner/workman on 14.11.1980. The workman further stated that he came to know that an F.I.R. has been lodged in the police station, Bhadohi, on 3/4.5.1980. The workman has not deposited Rs. 7,709.85 Paisa, and, therefore, he is absconding from service without any notice w.e.f. 18.10.1980 and a case has been instituted against the workman under Section 409, I.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur. The workman was given a charge-sheet on 16.3.1981, and before any explanation to be given, the workman has applied that copies of certain documents may be supplied to him, for which he was denied by the competent authority by its order dated 27.4.1981. The workman, therefore, sent a registered letter on 11.5.1981 and the workman received a letter on 9.6.1981 of the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer has informed the workman by that letter dated 9.6.1981 to be present in the office for oral or written statement. Since the workman was ill, he sent an application on 12.6.1981, which was not acknowledged by the officer, whereby he has prayed for a case in which he is sought to be involved, is a case where his colleagues and superior officers were also involved. The Executive Officer again by the order dated 1.7.1981 directed the workman to present himself in the office on 6.7.1981 and he wants to cross-examine the witnesses, that the workman concerned did not appear again, submitted that he received that letter on 8.7.1981 and he again on 10.7.1981 repeated the same. The workman has raised personal allegations against the Executive Officer. The workman has further submitted that no inquiry was started, nor he was supported by any inquiry, so neither the inquiry was fair nor proper. The employer has submitted a written report on 27.10.1981 and an F.I.R. was lodged against the workman concerned for embezzlement of money. The Executive Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the workman on 16.3.1981, and he submitted that the report dated 6.7.1981, where he has submitted a report that the charges were proved against the workman concerned and thereby the workman was removed from the service on 23.6.1986. Before the labour court, the workman has also set up a case that the domestic inquiry by the employer was not found fair and the employer is to prove the charges against the workman before the labour court.
(3.) THE labour court after considering the evidence on record have arrived at a conclusion that the domestic inquiry conducted by the employer against the workman was neither fair nor proper. THE workman was not afforded any opportunity to defend the charges levelled against him. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the labour court fixed 10.5.1995 as the date for employer to prove the charges against the workman, but the representative of the employer has asked further time, i.e., 30.6.1995 and on 30.6.1995, the employer again did not prove the charges against the workman, nor any charges were proved before the labour court by the employer as prayed for by the employer. The labour court, therefore, recorded the finding that the domestic inquiry conducted by the employer against the workman concerned was neither fair nor proper, and further a finding was recorded in respect of the opportunity so given to the employer. The employer has failed to adduce any evidence before the labour court to prove the charges against the workman.;