SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) Petitioner, by way of this writ petition, has assailed the award dated 17/06/1997 passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter referred as 'Labour Court').
(2.) The State Government vide reference dated 12/11/1991 referred the matter to the Labour Court to answer the question as to whether the action of the Principal, Mayo College, Ajmer in terminating services of the workman Shri Sajjan Singh (petitioner herein) on 01/11/1980 is legal and justified and if not, what relief the workman is entitled to be granted ?
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wages basis as a Chokidar (Class IV) in May, 1980 by submitting an application dated 20/05/1980 to the respondent-college through its Principal who marked on the said application and verbally told the petitioner to start work in the Mayo College as the Principal, Mayo College was the Secretary of the Mayo College General Council which controlled both i.e. the Mayo College as well as the Mayur School. It was submitted that the services of the petitioner were discontinued by verbal termination order on 01/11/1980. The same was allegedly done on account of not vacating the house allotted to the petitioner's elder brother Madan Singh who had gone abroad. It was submitted that the petitioner was also residing in the same quarter along with family of his elder brother. The respondent No. 2 also instituted a civil suit for vacating the petitioner from the said quarter and he raised an industrial dispute vide application dated 26/12/1989 challenging his oral termination. The Conciliation Officer submitted failure report and the petitioner submitted a statement of claim before the Labour Court. The Labour Court allowed the petitioner to implead respondent No. 3- Mayur School also as party. The respondents got two witnesses examined on their behalf. It was submitted that the Labour Court has failed to examine the case in its true perspective and has proceeded in a cursory manner and has read the evidence of the witnesses in a perverse and unjustified fashion. The Labour Court has given a finding that the petitioner could not prove his appointment as Chokidar in Mayur School on permanent basis and has treated application of the petitioner dated 20/05/1980 as an appointment order whereas the petitioner has nowhere claimed that the letter dated 20/05/1980 was an appointment letter. The letter dated 20/05/1980 was merely an application submitted by him for seeking appointment and the same was marked to the PA to Mayur School. The reasons submitted by the petitioner of termination were also not looked into and the allegation of malice alleged by the petitioner was also not looked into. The fact that Mayur School and Mayo College are sister educational institutions and the Secretary, Mayo College himself was defending the case and was presenting the case on behalf of Mayo Society were all overlooked and thus the award is vitiated in law and ought to be set aside.;