- (1.) PETITIONER, Gaur Brahaman Vidya Parcharni Sahba (Regd.), Rohtak (hereinafter called as the Management) impugns the award of the Labour Court dated November 14, 1991, Annexure P-2 by which termination of Rajinder Singh respondent No. 1 was held to be illegal and he was allowed reinstatement with full back wages. The ground taken up and pressed at the lime of motion hearing was that no opportunity of hearing was allowed to the petitioner-management to justify the order of the termination of Rajinder Singh respondent No. 2 before the Labour Court. It is asserted in para (3) of the writ petition that the Labour Court has adjourned the case to November 29, 1991. On that day an application was filed, inter alia, alleging that opportunity be allowed to the management to prove the misconduct relating to embezzlement of funds against Rajinder Singh workman. Since no opportunity on that application was allowed, the Management was deprived of its right to prove the misconduct on account of which the services of the workmen were terminated. On notice of motion having been issued, reply has been filed on behalf of the workman, inter alia, asserting that no such application was filed. Rather the award has been made earlier and the petitioner knew about it. In the written statement it was not asserted by the Management before the Labour Court that the order of termination was passed on account of any embazzlement. Rather the stand taken was that the order of termination was in accordance of terms and conditions of appointment letter. Replication has been filed by the petitioner supported by fresh material indicating that the Principal of the Management had written to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court on November 15, 1991 to inform them about the decision as and when taken. Copy of the affidavit of Sham Lal, a Clerk of the Management, has also been filed as Annexure P-4, it is not necessary to refer to other documents.
(2.) AFTER going through the pleading of the parties and the material produced in this case as well as the records of the Labour Court which was called, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has misstated the facts and succeeded in obtaining interim directions staying the operation of the award of the Labour Court, Annexure P-2. Thus, it is not considered appropriate to refer to the merits of the case for deciding the writ petition. Award Annexure P-2 is dated November 14, 1991 and the copies thereof were sent on November 14, 1991 to the concerned authorities. The proceedings of the Labour Court do not indicate that after November 14, 1991 anything was done in the Labour Court. The question of filing any application on November 29, 1991, as is the case of the petitioner-Management, would not arise. Moreover, when in the copy of the affidavit filed along with the replication, which is Annexure P-4, it is mentioned that when the inquiry was made on November 14, 1991 by visiting the Court of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, his application was returned by remarking that the case had not been decided. However, in the second paragraph, it is stated that he appeared in the Labour Court along with Shri Gobind Jaimini, Advocate and the counsel for the college was informed by the Labour Court that the case of Rajinder Singh, respondent No. 2 had already been decided and consequently the documents were not being accepted. If that is so, there would be no occasion for the Management to approach the Labour Court to file a fresh application dated November 29, 1991, copy of which was produced as Anenxure P-1.
(3.) WE have gone through the written statement, filed by the Management before the Labour Court. There was no plea taken therein that the services of Rajinder Singh workman were in fact terminated on account of any misconduct relating to embezzlement of funds. A simple plea was taken that the termination of services of Rajinder Singh was in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment letter. When there was no such plea in the written statement that termination of services was on account of misconduct, there could be no occasion for the Management to make a prayer to the Labour Court to otherwise justify the order of termination. The writ petition in the facts stated above, is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 500/-;