- (1.) PRAYER in the present writ petition is for quashing the award dated 30.01.2013 (Annexure P1) whereby the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunalcum - Labour Court -II, Faridabad, has come to the conclusion that the enquiry held by the Management was fair and proper and no reason had been made out to interfere with the quantum of punishment and the dismissal from service was a proper punishment and not on the excessive side. Accordingly, it was held that the workman was not entitled for any reliefs, as claimed by him.
(2.) THE facts which arise from the award would go on to show that the petitioner was appointed as helper on 10.01.1990 and his last drawn wages were Rs. 3500/ - per month. As per the claim, he was not allowed to resume duty after 23.12.1998. He filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'), for payment of wages for the unemployment period and came to know that a chargesheet dated 21.05.1999 had been issued and Shri Raj Kumar Sharma had been appointed as enquiry officer. A copy of the chargesheet was demanded but it was not given to him on the ground that it had already been sent by post. Thereafter, he came to know that his services were terminated vide order dated 27.06.2002. Resultantly, the dispute was raised and the matter was referred to the Labour Court.
(3.) DEFENCE taken by the Management was that the workman was dismissed after holding proper and fair domestic enquiry and he was given opportunity to defend himself. Preliminary issue was framed by the Labour Court as to whether the enquiry conducted by the Department was fair and proper. The enquiry officer Shri Raj Kumar Sharma was also examined as MW1 wherein he deposed that the workman chose not to appear before him inspite of the notice being issued. A finding was recorded that chargesheet, Exhibit M23 was sent to him vide registered post, as Exhibit M1 but he refused to receive the same and thus, it amounted to valid service. The stand of the workman that the letter, Exhibit M6 and its attached list was got written from him forcibly, was disbelieved and it was noticed that till the filing of the demand notice dated 29.03.2003, the workman did not make any complaint to any authority that any documents have been got written from him forcibly as he did not opt to raise any objection to the enquiry proceedings by not appearing before the enquiry officer despite opportunities given to him and even the second show cause notice, Exhibit M20 was sent to him along with the enquiry report and thus, a finding was recorded that by not coming forward to participate in the enquiry, he had made the in -house proceedings not workable.;