G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the award dated 18.01.2010 (Annexure P -4) whereby, the Labour Court, Rohtak held the legal heirs of the workman entitled to 40% back wages from 09.04.1992 till the date of death of the workman i.e. 11.09.2002 or the date of his retirement, whichever is earlier.
(2.) THE claim statement was filed by the wife of the workman taking the plea that the workman was appointed against a permanent post through the Employment Exchange vide letter dated 19.04.1978. The workman was promoted on the post of Assistant and his work remained satisfactory. An FIR was registered on 31.03.1988 bearing No. 42 under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and the workman was taken into custody on 26.04.1988 on account of some false and fake certificate of matriculation. Thereafter, the services of the workman were terminated on 09.04.1992 and the appeal was rejected on 01.01.2001. The workman was also charge sheeted on 28.04.1989 on the same set of allegations which pertained to the criminal case from which he was subsequently discharged on 28.10.1999. In the departmental inquiry, the principles of natural justice were flouted and the inquiry was not fair and proper. The similarly situated 3 clerks against whom criminal cases were also pending were also charge sheeted and held guilty by Inquiry Officer. The clerks had been acquitted in the criminal case and preferred an appeal with the Appellate Authority which had reinstated them in service whereas the workman had not been reinstated.
(3.) IN the written statement filed by the petitioner -Board, it was pleaded that the record of the workman was not satisfactory and the wife had no right to file the claim petition. The employee was in a habit of taking bribe and issuing fake certificates and had damaged the reputation of the Board. An inquiry had been conducted by Sh. R.N. Batra, Retired District & Sessions Judge and proper procedure had been followed. Proper opportunity had been given for personal hearing and the appeal of the workman was rightly rejected. The cases of the 3 clerks were not of the same nature as that of the workman.;