M.Katju - (1.) HEARD learned counsels for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated : 26.5.92 passed under Section 6E (2) (b) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent No. 3 was employed in the service of the petitioner and he was charge-sheeted and an enquiry was held and an order terminating his service was passed. An application was filed under Section 6E (2) (b) by the employers which has been rejected by the impugned order, hence this writ petition. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the ground for rejecting the employer's application is that copy of the enquiry report was not supplied as required by Ramzan Khan's case, AIR 1991 SC 471.
(3.) IN my opinion Ramzan Khan's case has no application in this matter. Firstly, the decision in Ramzan Khan's case has been modified by the larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, E. C. I. L. v. B. Karunakar, JT 1993 (6) SC 1 and in State Bank of INdia v. S. K. Endow, JT 1994 (1) SC 217. Secondly the principles of service law cannot be automatically applied to labour law. There is no principle in labour law that a copy of the enquiry report must be supplied to the workmen before terminating his service unless there is a provision to this effect in the standing orders of the concern. Moreover in a proceeding under Section 6E (2) (b) it has to be seen by the INdustrial Tribunal whether the employer has established a prima facie case vide M/s. Punjab Beverages Pvt. ltd. v. Suresh Chand and another, AIR 1978 SC 995, but that has not been done. Hence this petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded. I direct that the INdustrial Tribunal shall decide the matter within four months of production of copy of this order in accordance with law.;