K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE writ petition is for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of termination passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways on 13.03.1986 which was affirmed in higher administrative hierarchies. A charge against the Petitioner, who was a conductor in Haryana Roadways, was that he had not issued tickets to some passengers although the fares had been collected and he defrauded the Government to the tune of Rs. 11.50 paise. The enquiry to the misconduct was ordered by constituting an Enquiry Officer on 18.02.1985. The Enquiry Officer is reported to have submitted his report on 02.05.1985, on the basis of which, a show cause notice had been issued, why he shall not be terminated from service and although a reply was given, the disciplinary authority proceeded to terminate the service on 13.03.1986. He had preferred an appeal to the second Respondent which was also dismissed on 07.11.1987.
(2.) ON a reference obtained after raising a dispute against the termination, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. Before the Labour Court, the Management admitted that notice had not been sent to the Petitioner to reply to the charge -sheet and the whole proceedings were taken ex parte. The Court referred to the same in his order that the Management had admitted that no notice had been sent and the workman did not participate the enquiry. The Labour Court still found that the subsequent conduct of the workman showed that the charge against the workman must be taken as established. The Labour Court held the enquiry proceedings were to be held on 02.05.1985 and even though the conductor was in the same office, intentionally did not join the proceedings. He referred to the fact that the conductor left for meal at 12.30 PM and when he returned at 1 PM, he was informed that the case was adjourned to some other date. He was cross -examined before the Labour Court on the issue whether he was present for the enquiry on 02.05.1985 and the Court took his admission that he was present on that day to mean that he had participated in the proceedings. The Labour Court erroneously took this to be a serious contradiction and held that the workman deliberately absented himself. He, therefore, refused to countenance an argument that the enquiry had been conducted behind his back. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner refers me the statement of the Enquiry Officer himself before the Labour Court. He stated before the Labour Court that only summary of allegations were received by him and there was no admission of even a Presenting Officer. He also admitted that the employee was neither served through any registered notice regarding the date of enquiry nor regarding an interim order alleged to have been passed on 08.04.1985. He stated that he had submitted his enquiry report even on 02.05.1985 itself. The case had been posted for enquiry on 02.05.1985. It is inconceivable as to how the report itself was submitted on the same day. There was a complete violation of principles of natural justice on the admission of the Respondents themselves. Surprisingly, the Enquiry Officer also stated before the Labour Court that he cannot say whether the employee had made any embezzlement or not.
(3.) THE Labour Court ought to have found the termination bad only on a brazen admission that the enquiry was conducted without notice and even the Enquiry Officer was not able to affirm that the charges had been established. The Labour Court had traversed beyond the scope of challenge which is before the Court and made a special case for the Management to find that the charges had been established. Even the Management witness was not prepared to say the same before the Court. The award is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The Petitioner himself has died and only the legal representatives have been added. The entire period when he did not work, the legal representatives would be entitled to 50% of the amount and they would be also entitled to all the terminal benefits accruing to the estate of the deceased. The amount shall be worked out and paid to the legal representatives of the workman within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.;