S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 8.4.1987 (copy annexure P/7) vide which respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The Labour Court has held that the petitioner had failed to prove by cogent evidence that an enquiry was hold against respondent No. 1. The charge -sheet or the record of proceedings of the enquiry have not been produced and the Enquiry Officer was not examined. It was further observed by the Labour Court that inspector Malkeet Singh MW/I simply deposed that enquiry was held but he did not say that it was held in his presence. In view of this, the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that no enquiry was held. The petitioner has produced on record a copy of the charge -sheet, resolution of the municipal committee and letter regarding dismissal.
(3.) THE record of the Labour Court was called for. Though charge -sheet might have been issued, there is no evidence that enquiry was conducted. No such evidence was produced before the Labour Court. No such evidence is produced here also. Moreover, in this writ petition it has been stated in paras 8 and 9 as under: "8. That the respondent submitted his reply to the charge -sheet on June 21, 1982 reiterating his stand that he was ill. On receipt of his reply, the case was fixed for enquiry on June 25, 1982 at 9.15 A.M. in the office off he Municipal Committee. Respondent No. 1 came to know of this and he locked his house to avoid the service of the notice and left the headquarters without the permission of the concerned authority. Finding that he has deliberately absented himself from his house, the facts of misconduct as ascertained by the Enquiry Officer from the record, were placed before the house of the Municipal Committee. In order to ensure rules of natural justice and fair play, no immediate order was passed against the respondent but it was directed that a show cause notice for 21 days be served on the respondent as to why he should not be dismissed from service vide resolution No. 16, dated 29.6.1982. A show cause notice No. 229 dated 1.7.1982 was served on Harinder Singh a copy of the notice is attached to the writ petition as Annexure p. 5. 9. That the respondent submitted his reply to the 21 days notice as usual that he was ill and his absence was not deliberate. He did not claim any fresh enquiry. He was also called upon to submit anything personally in case he so wanted but he did not do so, A copy of the reply is attached to the writ petition as Annexure P -6.";