- (1.) This petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court, Meernt, dated 21-5-1971 holding that the order of the employers dismissing Satish Chasdra Jain, the workman, was justified.
(2.) M/s. Saharanpur Electric Supply co. Ltd, Ram Nagar, Saharanpur, was engaged in the business of production and distribution of electricity Satish Chandar Jain, Petitioner No. 2 was employed as an accounts clerk entrusted with the duties of maintaining security ledger. The employers framed charges against the workman, Satish Chandra Jain and held a domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges were fully proved against the workman. The Board of Directors of the said Company there upon dismissed the petitioner from service The Bijlighar Mazdoor Union which repersents the workmen of M/s. Saharanpur Electric Supply Co.. Ltd., raised an industrial dispute in the matter relating to the dismissal of Satish Chandra Jain. The State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court at Meerut, for adjudication. The dispute referred was whether the services of Satish Chandra Maim were terminated legally and if not to what relief or damages he was entitled. The dispute was contested by the employers. The Labour Court gave its award on 21-5-1S71 holding that the order of dismissal was justified and legal, hence the workman was not entitled to any relief. Aggrieved the Bijlighar Mazdoor Union and Satish Chandra Jain, the workman concerned, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the award. During the pendency of the writ petition M/s. Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd: was taken over by the U. P. State Electricity Board. The petitioners got the writ petition amended impleading the U. P. State Electricity Board, as respondent No. 4. to 'the petition.
(3.) Sri V. K. Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Labour Court recorded findings that the order of dismissal was vitiated because the workman had not been afforded any oppormnity of personal hearing by the Board of Directors. After recording those findings the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to hold enquiry suo motu or to ask the parties to produce evidence in respect of the charges framed against the workman. He further urged that the employers never raised any plea before the Labour Court that the workman was guilty of misconduct or that the order of dismissal was otherwise justified, instead they merely pleaded that the domestic enquiry was valid and as such the order of dismissal did not suffer from any legal infirmity. No alternative case was pleaded by the employers, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to record evidence or findings justifying the dismissal order.;