B.N.Misra, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the Award dated July 22, 1983 (Annexure-6) whereby the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur, has found that the termination of the services of Respondent No. 3 by the petitioner-Corporation on January 12, 1979 was improper and illegal. The Award further directs the petitioner to reinstate Respondent No. 3 in his service and pay 50 per cent of the back wages due to him.
(2.) Facts may be briefly stated. Respondent No. 3 was appointed as casual labourer in a short term vacancy on January 2, 1977. Thereafter, he was appointed from time to time as casual labourer until his appointment on fixed term basis. It is alleged that on January 11, 1979 Respondent No. 3 was found carrying away some electric welding rods belonging to the petitioner. The rods were seized from Respondent No. 3 who was immediately put under departmental proceedings. According to the petitioned as the Corporation did not want to take any penal action against Respondent No. 3 no formal order of punishment was passed against him, but he was not given any duties with effect from January 12, 1979. Thereafter, at the instance of Respondent No. 3 conciliation proceedings commenced and on receipt of the conciliation failure report, the State Government referred the following dispute to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur, and Adjudication Case No. 41 of 1981 was accordingly registered. "Kya sewayojakon dwara apne shramik Sahabuddin (putra Sri Abbas Ali) ko di-nank 12.1.1979 se karya se pritnak/van-chit kiya jana uchit tatha/athwa vaedhanik hai. Yadi nahin to sambandhit shramik kya labh/anuthosh/relief pane ka adhikari hi tatha anya kis vivran sahit".
(3.) The petitioner and Respondent No. 3 appeared before the Labour Court, filed their respective written statements and also led evidence. On consideration, the Labour Court passed an Award on July 22, 1983 (Annexure-6) holding that the termination of the services of Respondent No. 3 was improper and illegal. The petitioner was directed to reinstate Respondent No. 3 and he was given 50 per cent of back wages due to him. It appears that the decisions of the Labour Court is based mainly on the point that the domestic enquiry held by the petitioner against Respondent No. 3 was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. On merits also the Labour Court further found that Respondent No. 3 was innocent of the charges.;