B.R.James, J. - (1.) The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the employer) is a textile mill in Kanpur. One Radhey Shyam Bajpai was in its employ as Records Clerk. On the 8th August, 1955 he was appointed as Attendance Clerk, and as such his duty was to mark the attendance of workmen. During the fortnight ending on the 20th August, 1955 he made wrong entries in the case of five workmen. Thereupon the employer made a preliminary enquiry and as a result charged him on the 2nd September, 1955 with an act of misconduct, viz., making wrong entries of attendance in the case of five workmen referred to above.
(2.) The petitioner alleges that Radhey Shyam was asked to appear on the 14th September to explain why he should not be punished under the provisions of the Standing Orders. It was also pointed out to him that he had already received three notices of warning. But for some time he evaded service of the charge-sheet. Then on the 12th September he was orally directed by his immediate superior to report at the Mill Labour Office and take delivery of the charge-sheet. A written direction to the same effect was given to him by the Mill Manager. He however disobeyed the order. The charge-sheet was served on him on the 13th September. On the 14th a fresh charge was framed to the effect that he had wilfully disobeyed the orders of his superiors. On the 15th he submitted an explanation. An enquiry into the charges was started, and on the 28th he was required to give his statement. But this he refused to do and indulged in insulting language towards the Assistant Labour Officer who was presiding over the enquiry. The same day the employer sent him a letter informing him that a further opportunity would be given to him for taking part in the enquiry, but he threw away the peon-book and refused to take delivery of the letter. The following day he was requested by a clerk of the Record Office to give his local address so that communications may be sent to him there, but this request he turned down. On the 30th a further charge in respect of the incidents of the 28th and 29th was framed against him, and he was directed to appear on the 1st October to show cause why he should not be punished. He was suspended for four days pending the enquiry. He submitted an explanation substantially denying the various charges. His period of suspension was extended by another four days. The Labour Officer of the employer conducted an enquiry into the various charges on the 6th October, The next day he submitted a report stating that Radhey Shyam was guilty of the misconduct with which he had been charged. Thereupon the employer on 18th November, as required by Clause 29 of the Notification No. U-464 (LL)/XXXVI-B-257(LL)--1954 dated 14-7-1954, sent an application to the Regional Conciliation Officer of Kanpur, mentioning the various acts of misconduct committed by him and asking for permission in writing to dismiss him. He was kept under suspension pending the orders of the Conciliation Officer. That officer passed an order dated 9-6-1956 refusing permission to dismiss him. The State Government on 26-6-1956, in the exercise of its powers under Sections 3, 4 and 8 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, referred to the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer the dispute regarding Radhey Shyam's suspension and wages for the period of suspension.
(3.) The employer has now come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and prays that the Conciliation Officer's order of the 9th June 1956 be quashed inasmuch as it was passed without jurisdiction, and that the State Government be commanded to withdraw its order of reference of 26-6-1956.;