Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) The workman concerned-petitioner, aggrieved by the award of Labour Court, U.P., Meerut in Adjudication Case No. 23 of 1982 dated 2nd August 1976, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The following dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court: "KYA SEWAYOJAKON DWARA PRAJTISTHAN KE PHOTQ-LITHO OPERATOR SHRI R.K. DUBE. PUTRA SHRI BRINDABAN DUBE, KO DINANK 7/10/75 SE KARYA SE PRITHAK KAR DIVA JANA UCHIT TATHA/ATHWA VAIDHANIK HAI ? YADI NAHIN. TO WAH KYA LABHIKSHATIPURTI PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI TATHA KIS ANYA VIVRAN SAHIT ?"
(3.) On receipt of reference the Labour Court issued notices to the workman concerned and the employers who exchanged their pleadings and adduced their respective evidence. After hearing the workman concerned as well as the employers their respective case was under:4. The case set up by the workman was that the workman, R.K. Dube had started his service with the employers on 2nd September 1971 on a monthly pay of Rs. 450/- and his services were terminated on 7th October 1975. At the time of termination of service the workman was drawing salary of Rs. 900/- per month. As set up in the respective pleadings the workman was charged with the charge-sheet dated 9.9.1975 and after receipt of the reply of the workman a domestic enquiry was conducted. The workman has advanced argument that since he was appointed by the Branch Manager, it was Branch Manager a competent authority to take action against the petitioner but he was charge-sheeted and his services were terminated by the Manager who has no power to do so as he is the junior officer than the Branch Manager. The workman has further contended before the Labour Court that during the domestic enquiry he has not been afforded opportunity to defend himself. He has not been able to take help of co-worker and the enquiry was also not free and fair. The principles of natural justice have not been complied with in as much as the workman was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses While imposing punishment of Removal the previous conduct record of the workman has not been taken into consideration by the punishing authority. The workman, therefore prayed that he is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and continuity in service Against this plea the employers have set up their case that the workman is not covered by the definition of 'workman' and the reference of dispute, therefore is not an industrial dispute and it should not have been referred. The employers, have denied the allegation of the workman regarding domestic enquiry and also dented the fact that the workman was not afforded opportunity of defending himself and the domestic enquiry is bad for non-compliance of natural justice.;