- (1.) With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ application was taken up for final disposal at the state of admission.
(2.) The petitioner aggrieved of the award dated 21st November, 2003, passed by the Labour Court, Kota, has approached this Court, questioning its legality and validity in the instant writ application, praying for the following relief(s):- "i) Call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner and examine the same; ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby quash and set aside the impugned order/Award dated 21.11.2003 (Anx.14) passed by the learned respondent No.1 (Labour Court, Kota) in LCR No.144/1992 (Ram Bharose Versus Divisional Mechanical Engineer, RSRTC, Kota); iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby quash and set aside the termination order dated 24.7.90 (Anx.9) passed by the respondent No.2; iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby direct the respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages and further give all benefits for which the similarly situated employees are getting; v) Any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly also be passed in favour of the humble petitioner; vi) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the humble petitioner."
(3.) Shorn off unnecessary details, the indispensable material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy needs to be first noticed. The petitioner was initially engaged on 11st May, 1989, on purely temporary and daily wages basis @ Rs.25/- per day, to work at the Depot as indicated in the order of appointment. The office order dated 11th May, 1989, further stipulated that the appointment was purely temporary and could be terminated without any previous notice or information at any point of time, in addition to other conditions stipulated therein (Annexure-3). In response to offer of appointment, the petitioner submitted his joining report on the post of Driver enclosing the necessary documents i.e. driving licence, medical certificate etc. In view of the pressure of the passengers during the summer season, re-arrangements were made and as a consequence, the petitioner was directed to report to the Controlling Officer at Jhalawar, vide order dated 17th April, 1990 (Annexure-8). Later on, it surfaced that the petitioner obtained the employment by submitting forged documents with reference to his educational qualification. As a consequence thereof, office order dated 24th July, 1990, was issued terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect for obtaining employment by furnishing forged documents. A criminal case was also instituted for offence under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC', for short). The petitioner aggrieved of the termination of his services vide order dated 24th July, 1990, raised an industrial dispute. As a sequel, the Government of Rajasthan made a reference to the Labour Court in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1947', for short). The learned Labour Court taking into consideration the pleaded facts in the statement of claim submitted by the petitioner, it's counter-affidavit, evidence produced by both the parties as well as materials available on record, answered the reference against the petitioner and in favour of the employer holding the action of the Management in terminating the services of the petitioner vide order dated 24th July, 1990, as perfectly legal and valid, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief; which is impugned herein.;