- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This writ petition was heard by me and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the same was dismissed on 3rd September, 2003 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner-employer, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the award of the Labour Court, U. P. Meerut dated 14th February, 1983, passed in adjudication case No. 124 of 1979 copy whereof is appended as Annexure '10' to the writ petition. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication: "kya SEWAYOJKON DWARA APNE SHRAMIK JAGAT SINGH (PUTRA SRI SARDAR SINGH) CHALAK KI SEWAYEN APNE ADESH DINANK 23-12-1975 DWARA SAMAPT KIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA/athwa VAIDHANIK HAI? YADI NAHI TO SAMBANDHIT SHRAMIK KYA LABH/anutosh (RELIEF) PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI TATHA ANYA KIS VIVRAN SAHIT?" The Labour Court issued notices to the parties namely the workman concerned as well as the employer and parties were directed to exchange their pleadings and adduce such evidence as they would like to adduce. After the exchange of the pleadings and the evidence, the case as is emerged between the parties that the workman concerned has set up his case that he was appointed on permanent basis against a permanent post. His work and conduct was satisfactory and the charge sheet was served on him due to vengeance and bias attitude. No domestic enquiry was conducted and that the workman concerned was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself. Thus, the termination of services of the workman concerned with effect from 23rd December, 1975 and the punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs. 264. 16 be set aside and the workman is entitled for re-instatement with effect from 23rd December, 1975 with continuity of service and full back wages alongwith all consequential benefits.
(3.) THE petitioner-employer, in rebuttal of the case set up by the workmen concerned, have set up the case that the workman concerned, namely, Jagat Singh was appointed on 7th April, 1974 on purely temporary basis and his work and conduct was also not satisfactory and that there was a large number of complaint of misappropriating the diesel against the workman. THE In-charge of Hapur depot on inspection found that the workman had shown consumption of more diesel than the actual consumption and thus has misappropriated 254 litres of diesel, therefore, he was served with a charge sheet and it has been admitted by the workman concerned that at every stage that the workman was afforded full opportunity and only after the workman concerned was found guilty of the charges, the order impugned was passed. Apart from above, the petitioner-employer have also raised one technical objection, which has been decided against the employer and the same has not been pressed before me by the employer. On the nature of appointment of the workman, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the workman concerned was appointed on 7th April, 1974 on officiating basis without any specified period and he has worked after the aforesaid period. Exhibit E-3 supports the findings recorded by the Labour Court and therefore the case set up by the employer that his services were liable to be terminated under the provisions of U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 by giving one month notice or paying in lieu thereof. On this aspect of the matter, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the aforesaid rules do not apply to the industrial law and if the employer take a defence that it is a case of termination of temporary employee, then the employer were bound to comply with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short the 'act' ). The Labour Court further recorded a finding that in view of the fact that the workman concerned was appointed even assuming as per the case set up by the employer on officiating basis for indefinite period, the services of the workman could have been terminated only after complying with the provisions of U. P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, which admittedly has not been complied with. No enquiry report has been produced before the Labour Court and also no evidence has been produced in support of their case that there was any domestic enquiry before the termination of services of the workman concerned, neither any show cause notice has been issued to the workman as required under the aforesaid Rules. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court found that the enquiry, if any, and termination thereafter on the basis of the said enquiry is defective and contrary to the provisions of law and therefore will amount a case where no domestic enquiry was conducted, nor the provisions of Rule 55 of the U. P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1975 have been complied with regard to the domestic enquiry by the employer.;