AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard the parties, and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.
The petitioner has challenged the award dated 13.07.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 3/1992 by which on consideration of the entire evidence and documents on record it was held that the action of the management in discharging the workman from service is perfectly justified and he is not entitled to any relief.
The case of the petitioner is that he applied for Trade Apprenticeship training enclosing his Admit card issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, and after passing the written test and oral test, he was selected for Trade Apprenticeship training. After completion of training, he was offered employment by the management from 27.4.1982 as Millright and subsequently he was absorbed in the said post with effect from 2.8.1983. On 16.8.1986 he was served with a charge sheet alleging therein that he secured admission in the Trade Apprenticeship training course and subsequently got employment by playing fraud and producing fake Mark sheet in support of his claim that he had passed the matriculation examination. He submitted explanation denying the charges, thereafter, domestic enquiry was held, and subsequently, the petitioner was discharged from the service. The petitioner-workman raised industrial dispute which was ultimately referred for adjudication to the Labour court as to whether the termination from service of the petitioner was justified. The learned labour court on consideration and on the basis of evidence and materials on record came to the conclusion that the action of the management in discharging the workman was perfectly justified. It is this award passed by the labour court is under challenge in this writ petition by the petitioner-workman.
Mr. Delip Jerath, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was wrongly discharged from service holding that he had submitted fake matriculation certificate. As a matter of fact, the submission of the certificate was only for the purpose of verifying the age of the petitioner and not regarding his educational qualification. He further submitted that the management itself during the proceeding before the labour court stated that the workman fulfilled all the criteria for being selected for Apprenticeship training.
On the other hand, Mr. G. M. Mishra, leaned Counsel appearing for the respondent- TISCO relying on the averments made in Paragraph 5(a) to the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that for admission in the Trade Apprenticeship course, the minimum qualification was matriculation or having passed the secondary school examination. The petitioner instead of producing the matriculation certificate, produced the admit card of final examination. He was, however, selected for admission subject to the production of original matriculation certificate. The petitioner produced a copy of the mark sheet instead of producing the matriculation certificate. In spite of demand made by the management company, the petitioner failed to produce matriculation certificate. In view of the fact that some suspicion was raised and then the management got the matter enquired from Bihar School Examination Board and on enquiry, the Bihar School Examination Board sent the Mark Sheet of the petitioner, which revealed that the petitioner actually failed in the matriculation examination in two subjects i.e. English and Chemistry. Therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner had not passed matriculation examination, and he produced a fake matriculation certificate and mark sheet only in order to secure the employment by fraudulent means.
The learned labour court has discussed the evidence and materials on record elaborately and has come to the finding of fact that the petitioner purposely did not produce the matriculation certificate even before the labour court, and the mark sheet submitted by him was found to be fake, and therefore, in my view, the petitioner was rightly discharged by the management from the service, I do not see any illegality and irregularity in the award.
Accordingly, having found no merit this writ petition is dismissed.