M.R.Calla, J. - (1.) This is a writ petition directed against the order dated 3.5.1975 passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur whereby the domestic inquiry held against the petitioner was held to be fair and proper and the Award dated 24th March, 1979 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur holding the termination of the services of the petitioner was also held to be legal and valid and that the applicant was not entitled to any relief.
(2.) The petitioner was employed with the respondent No.2 M/s. Jaipur Spinning and Weaving Mills, Jaipur as Godown Clerk on 7.1.64 by the General Manager of the aforesaid mills. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet and after the inquiry he was dismissed from the service of the aforesaid mills by order dated 28th December, 1970 passed by the Factory Manager. This order dated 28th December, 1970 has been placed on record of this writ petition as Ex.4. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur and the same was dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to dispose of the s,-me. After the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of maintainability, the petitioner sent a notice for demand of justice to respondent No.2 on 2nd June, 1973 and thereafter he filed an application for conciliation before the Conciliation Officer. After a failure report sent by the Conciliation Officer to the Government, the Government of Rajasthan vide letter dated 11th September, 1974 referred the dispute under Section 10(i)(g) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Labour Court, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Labour Court passed the order on 3rd May, 1975 holding the domestic inquiry to be fair and proper and thereafter passed the Award dated 24th March, 1979 holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief and the termination of the services of the petitioner was legal and valid.
(3.) The petitioner has alleged that he had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity in the domestic inquiry because only 24 hours time was granted to him for filing reply to the charge sheet and the documents asked for by him were not made available to him despite his demand. It has also been argued that the petitioner had been appointed by the General Manager but the order of dismissal was passed by the Factory Manager who is an authority subordinate to the General Manager. On behalf of the petitioner it has also been argued in the first instance that the charges were wrongly held to be proved against him and the inquiry stands vitiated as the reasonable opportunity was not afforded to him, the documents asked tor were not made available to him and in the alternative it was also argued that linking to the nature of the charges the extreme punishment of dismissal was excessive and disproportionate and it is hardly a case in which he could be dismissed from service. With reference to the ground No. E taken in the Writ Petition, the counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Judge, Labour Court has committed an illegality in holding the charges against the petitioner to be proved and in holding that the charges were of serious nature and the punishment of dismissal was not held to be excessive. It was submitted that the petitioner's case was not considered on merits by the Labour Court and a mere look at the charges will show that the same were not of such a nature so as to warrant the petitioner's dismissal from the service. The counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the submissions made in para 5 of the writ petition wherein it has been stated that the petitioner had filed a detailed affidavit before the Labour Court on or about 19th February, 1975 in which it was specifically stated that the order of dismissal had been passed by Shri R.K. Gupta, Factory Manager, which was illegal on the ground that it was passed by a lower authority than the appointing authority because the petitioner had been appointed by the General Manager and the Factory Manager was an authority subordinate to the General Manager. A copy of this affidavit was also shown to me by the counsel for the petitioner from her own file and in para 5 of this affidavit the point that the petitioner had been appointed by the General Manager and yet he had been dismissed by the Factory Manager who had no authority to dismiss the petitioner has been specifically taken. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that in this view of the matter the finding of the Labour Court that this objection was not raised in the statement of claim or in the evidence and it was raised for the first time during the arguments is absolutely wrong and this finding suffers from the error apparent on the fact of the record.;