Ram Raj vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—By this common order, we are disposing of Civil Writ Petition bearing Nos. 13728 and 13742 of 2000 collectively as they arise out of the similar awards dated March 13, 2000 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union territory, Chandigarh. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 13728 of 2000.

Petitioner has filed a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the award dated March 13, 2000 (Annexure P-l) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh.

It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner-workman was appointed as a regular employee and joined the service of respondent No. 2- Management in the year 1985. He was placed under suspension vide order dated May 25, 1992. It has been further averred that a charge-sheet was issued to him, but it was not served upon him. Thereafter, a show cause notice was sent, but it was sent deliberately at a wrong address. It has been further averred that the workman visited the factory premises so that he be taken back on duty, but did not succeed in joining duty.

We have heard argument put forward by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and pursued the annexure attached with it.

It comes out that the respondent-management tried its level best to serve the charge-sheet on the workman and wanted him to join the enquiry proceedings. The respondent-management went to the extent of pasting the charge-sheet dated June 3, 1992 on the Notice Board and the workman in his statement has admitted that the charge-sheet was pasted on the Notice Board. The management further published the charge-sheet in newspaper "Jan Satta". An ex parte enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer Shri Rajesh Kaushik as the workman did not appear. After conducting of the enquiry, a copy of report was sent of the workman along with a show cause notice, but the respondent- management remained unsuccessful in intimating this to the workman, as it was clear that he was trying to avoid the enquiry report and the show cause notice. The management then approached the Labour Court to seek approval of the enquiry proceedings before terminating the services of the workman u/s 33(2)(b) of the Indu5trial Disputes Act, 1947. Award, Exhibit M-19, was passed.

The charge-sheet dated June 3, 1992, which is Exhibit M-4 as per the award, shows that the workman was called several times by the proprietor of the management on different dates, but he did not turn up. On May 26, 1992 the workman along with this co-workers, instead of coming to the management for pleading his case, indulged in gross indiscipline and went to the extent of deflating tyres of the car of Shri K.D. Singh, a representative of the firm.

For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the case of the petitioner. Both these writ petitions are, thus, dismissed.

Petitions dismissed.