- (1.) R. B. Mehrotra, J. Once again the employer has successfully stalled the proceedings of a labour Court nearly for a period of six years, in a reference made under Section 4kof the Industrial Disputes Act by the State Government at the instance of workmen-respondent No. 2, Sri Chandra Pal in the present writ petition.
(2.) ON 12. 12. 1989, the State Govern ment made a reference under Section 4kof the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( here in after referred to as the Act), to the Labour Court-II at Meerut for deciding the following industrial dispute: "whether the termination of the services of the workman, Sri Chandra Pal s/o Sri Sohan Lal, Head Moulder by order dated 13. 1. 86 passed by the employer was just and legal If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and all other connected matters. " On notice issued to the parties, the employer M/s Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. filed a written statement on 3-4-1989 wherein they contended that 'dis missal of workman from service was as con sequence to fair and proper enquiry and the report of the Enquiry Officer which is based on evidence recorded in domestic enquiry. However, if this Hon'ble Court at any Stage comes to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the employer was not fair and proper of stood vitiated on any other ground, the employer in accordance with the settled principles of law, may kindly afford opportunity to prove the charges afresh before this Hon'ble Court. " On pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed as many as four issues. The issues framed by the labour court are reproduced below: " (1) Whether the domestic enquiry con ducted in the matter was not fair and proper. If so, its effect. (ii) Whether the punishment inflicted on the workman was justified considering past conduct of the workman, in case the enquiry is found to be proper and whether the punishing authority was legally bound to punish the workman before pass ing the final order. (iii) Whether the punishing authority acted in violation of principle of natural justice in relying on the inquiry report without notice to workman. (iv) Whether the termination of the services of the workman concerned is an act of victimisa tion unfair labour practice.
(3.) ON 1. 1. 1991 an application was again moved on behalf of the employer before the labour court, praying there in that issue No. 1. may be decided as preliminary issue and further prayed that in case issue No. 1 is decided against the employer then they may be afforded opportunity to lead evidence before the labour court. ON. 11. 1. 1991, the Labour Court rejected the application of the employer-petitioner in the present writ petition rely ing on a decision of this Court in Vikram Cotton Mills case 1. (1) Vikram Cotton Mills v. Presiding Officer [1989 (59) FLR 386]. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. This Court issued notice directing the writ petition, to come up for admission on 11. 4. 1991 and further directed that meanwhile the proceedings in adjudication case No. 161 of 1990, pending before the respondent No. 1 shall remain stayed. The order-sheet of the case discloses that thereafter the matter was taken up only on 28. 8. 92and the matter was adjourned on the ground that the number of writ petition and the name of counsel have been wrongly printed. Thereafter the matter for the first time was taken up on 13. 2. 1995 and the learned counsel for the petitioner got the case adjourned to 23. 2. 1995. The matter was again lost and was taken up only on 9. 8. 1995, when I heard the counsel for the parties and reserved the judgment. I am not in a position to comment, as to whether the case was listed as per direction of this Court or it was arranged in the office that the case may not be listed despite direction of the Court. Most of the time of office comes with flimsy explanation that the mat ter was listed but was not taken up and the Bench Secretary has not noticed in the order-sheet regarding listing of the matter. The Bench Secreataries are also not in posi tion to explain this situation. All this is being stated just to emphasise that the sys tem is failing and despite Court's solemn desire to expeditiously decide the issues, the matter remain pending for years, as the mat ter is never brought before the court either due to over listing of cases or due to wrong listing of cases or many times due to ad journments sought by the counsel. The ul timate sufferer is the poor and helpless man who is knocking the doors of justice to fight the mighty one.;