- (1.) Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 18.2.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed and award dated 29.9.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal was quashed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. In-fact, it was a case of no inquiry. Appellant had not made any admission/confession before the inquiry officer.
(3.) Signatures of the appellant had been taken on blank papers. Even if the appellant had made any admission/confession, it was imperative on the respondent to have held an inquiry against the appellant before terminating his services. No interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was made out, as the award of the labour Court could not be said to be perverse. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on The State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Jagdish Chandra Khadgawat, 1986 (2) SLR 424, wherein it Division Bench of this Court held as under:- "15. xxx ......It is not necessary to multiply the authorities, as the position appears to be well settled by the apex court of the country. In these circumstances, we find ourselves unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that in view of the so-called admitted facts or admissions made by the petitioner-respondent in his statement before the Investigating Officer Shri S.C. Chhabra, which has been produced as Ex. R. 4 no useful purpose could be served by holding enquiry or that no further enquiry was necessary. It may be stated that the allegation of forfeiture of trust and confidence of the Bank is in respect of the conduct attaching stigma on the petitioner-respondent. It was held in Chandulal's case that the enquiry is a condition precedent for inflicting penalty of termination of service.";