- (1.) This petition has been moved by Sardari Lal for quashing the award dated 13.4.1987 Annexure P.18, the inquiry report dated 30.9.1981 Annexure P.17, the termination order dated 20.7.1982 Annexure P.1 with a further direction to respondents No. 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner with full back-wages, seniority benefits and all other consequential service benefits.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Daftri on 10.9.1962 by the Chairman, Managing Committee Mehar Chand Polytechnic C/o D.A.V. College Managing Committee, Chitra Gupta Road, New Delhi-respondent. He was appointed as Clerk on 1.11.1963. Since then, he had been working on the post of Clerk till 20.7.1982, when his services were illegally terminated on the basis of an illegal inquiry. In the month of October, 1978, Mr. B.L. Handoo, respondent No. 3 was appointed as the Principal of Mehar Chand, Polytechnic College, Jalandhar City. He did not like the petitioner because of his support to the Union. This Principal started making efforts to get rid of him on one pretext or the other. The petitioner was transferred to Dayanand Junior Technical School, Jalandhar City on 14.9.1979. He was placed under suspension on 15.12.1979 by the aforesaid Principal, who was not the appointing authority without any reason or material on record. The Principal is subordinate to respondent No. 2. On 4.8.1980, the petitioner was served with a chargesheet containing the allegations concerning the year 1978 or prior thereto. The list of witnesses was not supplied to the petitioner. The abovementioned Principal issued charge-sheet to the petitioner and passed the termination order. For the purpose of preparing a reply to the charge-sheet, the petitioner wanted to see the record relevant to the charges and the documents which were relied upon by the Principal. Shri Tek Chand (a retired Judge of this Court), a life Member of the DAV Management Committee was appointed as an Enquiry Officer whom the petitioner sent a letter to requesting him to direct the aforesaid Principal to supply the duplicate copies of the documents mentioned in support of allegations. The Enquiry Officer granted an opportunity to the petitioner to inspect the record and obtain copies or make his notes for submitting reply to the charge-sheet. The petitioner approached the Clerk of the Principal on 28.11.1980 to inspect the record, which was not shown to him. He immediately sent a recorded delivery letter to the Enquiry Officer that he has not been shown the record. The Enquiry Officer started making inquiry from 26.11.1980. That it appears from the award that the Enquiry Officer started inquiry after receipt of Ex.C.3 dated 20.3.1981, thus, the Enquiry Officer resumed his office even before his appointment as such. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 4.12.1980 without an opportunity to either inspect the record or having the copies of the documents relied upon by the respondent- Management. The petitioner expressed complete lack of faith in the Enquiry Officer as he being a life Member of the DAV Management Committee onwards took a biased view favourable to the Managing Committee. On 10.2.1981, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and moved an application requesting him to supply him or get him the copies of documents which are being relied upon by the Principal. The Enquiry Officer expressed his total inability in this behalf. On the same day, the petitioner moved two applications to the Enquiry Officer out of which, one was made for obtaining permission to engage the lawyer in the inquiry proceedings as the charges had been made complicated. Such permission was declined. The other one was moved for seeking permission to engage a person well versed in labour matters like the General Secretary of the Indian National Trade Union Congress, which was also rejected by the Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer continued with the inquiry, though the petitioner did not appear before him in protest as he was completely handicapped to defend himself. The petitioner was proceeded ex parte without following the due procedure. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The inquiry report reflects that the Enquiry Officer made personal comments on the petitioner and by proposed punishment overstepped his jurisdiction. The dispute was raised by the petitioner. The impugned award was passed. The services of the petitioner are governed by the Punjab Privately Managed Recognized Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 and the rules framed thereunder, which are known as Punjab Privately Managed Recognized Schools Employees (Security of Service) Rules, 1981. The respondent institution is being given 95% aid by the Government of Punjab. Therefore, this Act has been extended to all the Polytechnics which are aided by the State of Punjab. The Labour Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner was not supplied copies of the documents and the Enquiry Officer had started the inquiry before he was appointed as such vide Ex.C.3 and the petitioner was not permitted to engage a counsel or an expert of proceedings of inquiry and in these circumstances, the impugned award is liable to be set aside.
(3.) In their joint written reply, respondents No. 2 to 4 have inter alia pleaded that it is a personal contract of service, not enforceable in law. The petitioner is guilty of misrepresentation and misstatement of facts. This writ petition suffers from latches having not been filed with promptitude. The termination of service is an internal management, in which no other agency can interfere. Lastly, it has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed.;