Daya Chaudhary, J. - (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned award dated 03.08.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, whereby, it has been held that the services of the petitioner have been rightly terminated by respondent No.2- Management. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of a direction to respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner with back wages along with all consequential benefits.
(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the petition, are that the petitioner-workman joined the services of M/s LA Tech. Exports Private Limited (here-in-after referred to as the 'respondent-Management'). Subsequently, he was sent to Cable Engineering Company as Fitter on 01.01.1990. Thereafter, he was issued charge sheet levelling certain allegations regarding having tea at work place, to which he submitted his reply. Finding reply of the charge sheet unsatisfactory, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges levelled against him. On the basis of said inquiry, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide Order dated 24.08.1998. Thereafter, he served a demand notice dated 24.09.1998 inter alia challenging the inquiry report as well as order of termination dated 24.08.1998. Ultimately, the petitioner-workman failed to prove that his services were illegally terminated and he was not held entitled to relief sought for before the Industrial Tribunal. The reference was answered in negative by the Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court U.T. Chandigarh vide award dated 03.08.2007 which is now under challenge in the present petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Inquiry Officer was not fair. A request was also made by the petitioner for changing of Inquiry Officer but his request was not considered. Even the assistance of co-worker was also denied to the petitioner during the enquiry proceedings. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the same allegations were there against some other workers but no action was taken against them and only the services of the petitioner were terminated as he was the representative of the workers Union. Learned counsel also submits that the Labour Court has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the petitioner as after conclusion of the inquiry, no opportunity of personal hearing was given before passing of order of dismissal. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a poor person and he could not challenge the award within reasonable time, whereas, much injustice has been caused to him and delay in filing the present petition is liable to be condoned in the interest of justice.;