- (1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. By an application dated 6-9-2001 submitted to Joint Registrar (Listing), brought on record Sri R. C. Thakur, Respondent No. 3, has requested and is granted permission to withdraw Vakalatnamas of counsels appearing for him in the matter, and to permit him to argue in person.
(2.) HEARD Ms. Bharti Sapru for petitioner and Sri R. C. Thakur Respondent No. 3 appearing in person. The petitioners have challenged an award made by Labour Court (I), U. P. Kanpur dated 22-12-2000, in adjudication Case No. 19 of 1995 published on 13-4-2001, returning findings in favour of Respondent No. 3, to the effect that his services were illegally and unjustifiably terminated on 1-6-1980, and directing his reinstatement with full back wages till the date of his reinstatement with all service benefits. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is a Company registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office at 15/1, Cubbon Road, Banglore. It is engaged in the manufacture, repair, over-hauling and development of defence equipments and aircraft's. One of its manufacturing unit is situate at Chakeri at Kanpur employing about 2200 employees. Sri R. C. Thakur, Respondent No. 3 was employed on 1-8-1964 as Group Leader (instrument ). He was confirmed as Highly Skilled Technician on 31-11- 1976. It is alleged that on 18-1-1979 he committed gross misconduct in assaulting Sri Harbans Singh, his departmental officer by beating him with paper weight, and bringing him down by pulling his hair. He was charge-sheeted and a domestic inquiry was held in which the charges were proved against him. He was thereafter given a notice giving him opportunity of explain his behavior and conduct and thereafter his services were terminated with effect from 1-6-1980. The Departmental Appeal was decided against him on 24-10-1980 by the Chief Administrative Manager. In Conciliation Board case No. 1436 of 1985 the Deputy Labour Commissioner condoned the delay, against which petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 18791 of 1985. The writ petition was dismissed on 14-4-1988. After failure of the conciliation proceedings, the State Government vide referring order dated 28-4-1989, referred the following industrial dispute to Labour Court (V), U. P. Kanpur. "kya SEWAYOJAKON DWARA APNE KARMCHARI R. C. THAKUR PUTRA SRI G. C. THAKUR KO DINANK 1-6- 1980 SE KARYA SE PRITHAK/vanchit KIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA/athava VAIDHANIK HAI? YADI NAHIN TO SAMBANDHIT KARMCHARI KYA HITLABH/upsam PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI TATHA KIS ANNYA VIVRAN SAHIT?"
(3.) THE Labour Court (5), Kanpur adjudicating the matter framed a preliminary issue on 17-5-1990 to the effect 'whether the domestic inquiry held by employer against concerned workman was proper and complied with the principles of natural justice? By an order dated 15-1-1993 the Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry was not proper and did not conform to the principle of natural justice. Aggrieved the petitioner challenged the order deciding the preliminary issue in its second Writ Petition No. 6494 of 1993, in which initially the proceedings were stayed on 12-3-1993 and thereafter by a judgment and order dated 18-9-1998 the writ petition was dismissed following the decision in D. P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1984 SC 153, observing that the writ petition against the decision of preliminary issue is not justified, and that the petitioner can challenge the said finding, if necessary, when the final award is challenged. THE writ petition was dismissed with cost assessed at Rs. 1,500. THE reference was transferred to Labour Court (I) Kanpur. After giving several opportunities to the employers to lead evidence, the Labour Court proceeded ex parte on 24-3-1999. On an application filed by petitioner, the Labour Court vide its order dated 5-5-1999 gave a fresh opportunity to the employers to lead evidence. Summons were obtained for making service on six witnesses by the employers to be served by dasti service. THEse were, however, sent by post, and were returned with endorsement of insufficient address. On 26-4-1999, the employers made a statement that they did not want to adduce any further evidence. A list of some documents were filed which were accepted on payment of costs. On 15-12-1999, the workman cross-examined Sri B. B. Tripathi, who was examined as a witness by employer. On 4-3-2000 workman was examined and was cross-examined, and that on 10-3-2000, after twelve years of reference, an application was made by the employers challenging the reference made by the State Government on the ground that the employers' establishment is in control of the Central Government. The Labour Court took strong exception to the fact that the employers did not take the objection about validity of reference by the State Government on several opportunities. It has not taken objection in written statement, at the time of framing preliminary issue; in writ petition filed before the High Court, and even thereafter for about twelve years, when the matter was pending before the Labour Court, and have taken these objections only at the stage of final hearing. The objections were accordingly rejected. The Labour Court, thereafter proceeded further from the stage when the preliminary issue regarding the validity of domestic inquiry was held against the employers and found that inspite of several opportunities given, the employers had not produced any witness to justify the termination of service of the workman. It found that the employer has filed only one affidavit of Sri P. C. Tripathi, Deputy Manager (Personnel) deposing that Late Harbans Singh, Deputy Manager had made complaint on the basis of which, charge-sheet was given. He stated in his cross-examination that the report was not filed earlier as it was not available, and was in fact made available on 8-1-1979. On a question put to him, regarding the fact stated at page 36 of the inquiry report, in which it was clearly stated by the Presenting Officer that Harbans Singh had never made any complaint, Sri P. C. Tripathi stated in his cross-examination that he did not take part in the domestic inquiry held against Sri R. C. Thakur (workman), and that the complainant Harbans Singh has not signed the complaint. He also admitted that in the domestic inquiry that Sri Daljeet Singh had stated in cross-examination in the enquiry that Harbans Singh had not made any complaint. In the circumstances the Labour Court recorded findings believing the statement of the workman that the complaint was prepared for the purpose of the case and that it cannot be relied upon, and held that the termination of workman's services on 1-6-1980 were not valid and legal.;