- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 31-10-1984 given by Presiding Officer, labour Court, Gorakhpur in Adjudication Case No, 151 of 1980. Through the said award, it was held that termination of services of respondent No. 2 chandra Bali Singh by petitioner No. 1 was illegal and improper. The date of birth of respondent No. 2 is 17-7-1923 hence in normal course he would have retired on 16-7-1983. The Labour Court therefore directed that as respondent No. 2 had raised the dispute before Conciliation Officer quite late hence he was entitled to wages from the date on which he raised the dispute before Conciliation Officer till the date of retirement i. e. 16-7-1983. In the award, the exact date of raising the dispute before conciliation Officer was not given. The number of c. P. Case was 84 of 1979. Reference under section 4k of U. P Industrial Disputes Act was made on 25-10-1980.
(2.) THERE was serious dispute during argument in between the learned Counsel for both the parties regarding the Regulations, which covered service conditions of respondent No, 2. According to learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, U. P co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations of 1975) were applicable while, according to learned counsel for the petitioner U. P Co-operative Federal authority (Business) Regulations, 1976 covered the service conditions of respondent No. 2.
(3.) THE Labour Court in the impugned award held that termination of service of respondent No. 2 was not in accordance with Para (Regulation) 85 of the regulations of 1975. Under the said provision relating to disciplinary proceedings, it is necessary that employee shall be served with Charge sheet and provided opportunity to submit the explanation, to produce evidence and to cross-examine the witness of the employer. Even under the: business regulations of 1976 same procedure is prescribed for disciplinary proceedings hence absolutely no difference would be made even if it is held that business Regulations of 1976 applied to the respondent No. 2. I, therefore, do not consider it necessary to decide the said question.;