- (1.) THE petitioner seeks to quash the award, dated January 8, 1996 of the Labour Court, Ajmer, whereby the termination of the services of the respondent-workman was declared illegal and a direction was issued to reinstate the workman in the services with 50 per cent back-wages.
(2.) THE petitioner averred in the writ petition that there were several matters of embezzlement, loss of property and the other misconduct against respondent 2 Shyam Sunder Dani for which a chargesheet, dated June 18, 1993, was issued to him. Respondent 2 in the reply of the chargesheet denied the allegations. The petitioner was not satisfied with the reply and terminated the services of respondent 2 vide order, dated September 20, 1993. The respondent 2 raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Ajmer. The Conciliation Officer failed and the State Government by notification, dated July 7, 1995, referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ajmer. Labour Judge recorded the evidence and after hearing the parties passed the impugned award observing that as no enquiry for misconduct of the respondent 2 was held, the termination was bad in law. However it was also observed that looking to the conduct of respondent 2 the employer may give him some other job and if he does not prove himself of a good conduct, then after an enquiry his services can be terminated.
(3.) SRI Virendra Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, made a scathing criticism of the impugned award from all angles. The main contention of learned counsel is that the Labour Judge ought to have at the outset held that there was no domestic enquiry held by the employer in respect of misconduct and thereafter opportunity to adduce evidence ought to have been provided to the parties regarding the issue of "misconduct. " But in the instant case no such procedure was followed and the evidence was recorded on merits of the reference. After recording the evidence of the respondent 2 only an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner employer to rebut the evidence. Basic authority on which the reliance was placed by Sri Agrawal learned counsel is United Planters Association of Southern India v. K. G. Sangameswaran 1997-I-LLJ-1104 (SC ). Sri Agrawal, had invited my attention towards Para. 12 of the decision which read thus at p. 1108: "before construing the provisions of Section 14 and Rule 9, it may be stated that it has always been the philosophy of industrial jurisprudence that if the domestic enquiry held by the employer was defective, deficient, incomplete or not held at all, the Tribunal, instead of remanding the case to the enquiry officer for holding the enquiry de novo, would itself require the parties to produce their evidence so as to decide whether the charges, for which disciplinary action was taken against the employee, were established or not. . . " Sri Agrawal, laid emphasis on the words 'would itself require' and canvassed that as per mandate of K. G. Sangameswaran case (supra), the Labour Court itself suo motu was bound to provide opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence so as to decide whether the charges for misconduct were established or not. Providing the opportunity to rebut the evidence of the employee on merit was not sufficient. Further opportunity to adduce evidence in respect of charge of misconduct was also required. It was also contended that direction in respect of 50 per cent of the back wages are also illegal in view of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ved Pal Singh 1998-III- (Suppl)-615 (SC ). Placing reliance on Union of India v. Bihari Lal Sidhana 1997 (3) L. L. N. 73, learned counsel urged that reinstatement of the respondent 2 in the face of serious charges of misconduct would be a charter for him to indulge with impunity in misappropriation of money.;