- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. S. Rathore, the learned Counsel for the workman, respondent No. 1.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award passed by the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 36 of 1999. The reference made under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act is whether the employers were justified in terminating the services of the workman w. e. f. 5-5-1994 and, if so, to what relief was the workman entitled to. It is relevant to state here that the order of termination was passed in the year 1994. The reference was made by the State Government by an order dated 17-1-1999. The facts leading to the impugned award is, that an advertisement was issued by the petitioner Corporation in a newspaper on 3-3-1993 for filling up 50 posts of drivers. The advertisement indicated that the posts would be filled up from the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the workman, respondent No. 1, applied and filed a certificate issued from the Tehsildar indicating that he belonged to a scheduled caste category. The petitioner was selected and an appointment letter dated 26-4-1993 was issued to him as a driver on a daily rated basis. Subsequently, on an inquiry, it was found that the respondent No. 1 was not a Scheduled Caste candidate. Based on the investigation made by the petitioner, a show-cause notice dated 28-4-1994 was issued to the workman, to show-cause, as to why his services should not be dispensed with, for furnishing a false caste certificate. The workman was directed to submit a reply by 30-4-1994. Since no reply was received by the employers till 4-5-1994, the management, taking the averments made in the show-cause notice to be correct, passed the impugned order of termination dated 5-5-1994. It transpires that the workman filed a Writ Petition No. 21009 of 1994 before the High Court challenging the order of termination dated 5-5-1994, which was dismissed as withdrawn in the year 1999. It seems that the workman thereafter raised an industrial dispute under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and upon the failure of the conciliation proceedings, the State Government, by an order dated 17-2-1999, referred the dispute, for adjudication before the Labour Court.
(3.) BEFORE the Labour Court, the workman filed a written statement alleging that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and that his services were terminated arbitrarily without applying the principles of audi alteram partem and without complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner in its written statement submitted that the appointment of the respondent No. 1l was made pursuant to an advertisement inviting applications from the Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe candidates for appointment on the post of a Driver, and in the inquiry, it was found, that the workman was not a Scheduled Caste and that he was a Backward Class. The employer further stated that a show-cause notice was issued to the workman and since he failed to file a reply, it was presumed that he had nothing further to say in the matter and accordingly, the impugned order of termination was passed by the employers. It was also submitted that there was no requirement to hold an oral inquiry or to give any further opportunity to the workman or to comply with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court in its award held that the workman was entitled for an opportunity of hearing pursuant to the preliminary inquiry conducted by the employers. Since no opportunity of hearing was given to the workman, the order of termination was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court further found, that no fraud was committed by the workman and that the error in the issuance of the caste certificate was done by the Tehsildar in which the workman had no role to play. The Labour Court further held that the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act was not complied by the employers. In view of the aforesaid findings, the Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the workman with 25% of back wages.;