SULOCHANA Vs. KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the respondent- Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') by an order dated 15th February, 1979. That order made it clear that the appointment was temporary and liable to be terminated without previous notice and without giving reasons therefor. The order also made it clear that persons appointed under the order would remain on probation for a period of two years. It is clear by the order dated 21st February, 1979 that her posting was altered and she was posted to State Warehouse, Shimoga instead of Head Office at Bangalore. By show-cause notice dated 24th April, 1984 the petitioner was called upon to show-cause as to why she should not be dismissed from the service for cheating and also why police case should not be lodged against her as she had obtained the post of Junior Clerk in the Corporation by producing false Certificate indicating that she belongs to Scheduled Caste thus depriving a genuine candidate of that group obtaining job. By reply dated 26.5.1984 which is in Kannada she explained the circumstances in which she produced false Certificate along with her application. It can be summarised as follows:

(2.) The respondent-Corporation, by its resolution dated 7.11.1983 recommended her removal from service for the reason of producing false certificate and for obtaining appointment as Junior Clerk. As a result of the said resolution, the Managing Director of the Corporation discharged the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, she filed an appeal to the Chairman of the Corporation as provided in the Regulations of the Corporation governing her service conditions. That appeal also came to be dismissed. Therefore, this Writ Petition is presented under Article 226 of the Constitution for relief. Her prayer is for quashing the order of the Managing Director of the Corporation as well as the order of the Chairman.

(3.) It is contended for the petitioner that the order is vitiated as no enquiry has been held. It is also contended that the termination falls under Section 25(r) of the Industrial Disputes Act as the respondent-Corporation carries on an industry and she is a 'workman' within the meaning of that expression as defined under the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 and as no retrenchment compensation is paid, the termination is bad.