BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN PVT. LTD. (A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA) REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER Vs. SRI. N. KUMARASWAMY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 10.07.2002 in application Nos. 1 to 6/2002 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court (for short 'the Tribunal') rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 33(2)(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking approval of the dismissal of respondents.

(2.) PETITIONER is a company engaged in printing of currency notes having its press at Mysore in the State of Karnataka and at Salboni in the State of West Bengal. The petitioners issued an advertisement on 19.02.1996 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment of personnel in various grades. In response to the advertisement issued by the petitioners, the respondents applied claiming reservation under OBC category. In the process of selection, the respondents were selected and appointed on 06.04.1996. Subsequently, the services of respondents came to be confirmed on 06.01.1998, 16.06.1997, 11.07.1997, 05.07.1997 and 19.06.1997 respectively. After a lapse of nearly 4 years, the petitioners issued articles of charges on 17.10.2000 to the respondents stating that by producing false OBC certificates they have secured employment The respondents submitted their explanation inter alia denying the charges levelled against them. The Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the explanation of the respondents initiated enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report stating that the charges levelled against the respondents as proved. The Disciplinary Authority by accepting the enquiry report passed an order of penalty on 30.09.2001 dismissing the respondents from service. Subsequently, the petitioners filed application Nos. 1 to 6/2002 under Section 33(2XB) of the Industrial Disputes Act ("the Act' for short) seeking approval of their action of dismissing the respondents from service. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and on appreciation of the material on record passed the impugned order rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners. Hence, this petition.

(3.) PER contra, Sri. N.G. Phadke, learned Counsel for respondents contend, that the advertisement issued by the petitioners do not specify that the respondents are required to furnish the OBC certificate issued by the Government of India. In the absence of specific stipulation in the advertisement, the respondents produced the OBC certificate issued by the Government of Karnataka. He contends, that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondents belong to OBC category. The petitioners by accepting the OBC certificate produced by the respondents selected, appointed and confirmed their services. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to dismiss the respondents from service on the ground that they have not produced the OBC certificate in me form prescribed by the Government of India. He further submits, mat subsequent to the appointment of respondents, the castes of respondents are included in the list of backward classes by the Government of India. He justifies the impugned order. Reliance is placed on the following decisions.