DULA RAM CHAUDHARI Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, U.P. CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS FEDERATION LTD. AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2009-3-216
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on March 31,2009

Dula Ram Chaudhari Appellant
VERSUS
Managing Director, U.P. Co -Operative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) PETITIONER was spinning master in U.P. Co -operative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd. and at the relevant time, he was working at Nagina District, Bijnore. His services were terminated. The termination order has been challenged through this writ petition. When the writ petition was filed 11 years before, petitioner was 53 years of age as disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Accordingly, by now he must have crossed the age of superannuation. No stay order was granted in this writ petition.
(2.) I find that both the parties behaved in an unreasonable manner. Accordingly, the only relief, which may be granted to the petitioner, is that of award of reasonable damages. Annexure -7 to the writ petition is the copy of the charge -sheet dated All the charges are extremely general in nature. The charges are that due to carelessness of the petitioner during the months of June and July, 1996 and from October, 1996 till January, 1997 production was for below the target; that the petitioner did not operate machines in skilled and effective manner, which resulted in fall in production; and that the quality of the production during the above period was also inferior, which adversely affected the production in post spinning department; and that petitioner's supervision over production was not upto the mark resulting in fall in production. Absolutely, no specific instance of petitioner's carelessness or negligence was mentioned in the charge -sheet. Production depends upon innumerable factors. Role played by the supervisor, working period of the mill, supply of electricity, condition of machines, timely repairing of the defects developed in the machines, timely supply of raw material of proper quality, skill and efficiency of workers are some of the factors responsible for production.
(3.) THE petitioner was at fault inasmuch as he did not reply to the charge -sheet in spite of repeated opportunities. His defence that he was admitted in a hospital in Chandigarh in connection with treatment of his throat is not very substantial.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.