(1.) These three LPAs involving similar questions of law and fact were taken for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The fact of the matter however is being noticed from LPA 413/2002 The respondent herein was employed in horticulture department as a Mali. He was transferred to Civil Lines Zone in October 1983. His services were terminated on November 10, 1984 without assigning any reason. According to the respondent, on November 15, 1984 while he was going back to his house after performing his duties, he sustained injuries in a fight with another villager and remained confined to Hindu Rao Hospital. He was treated as out door patient for two months. A case under Section 307/324 IPC was registered against him. After his recovery he reported for duty but he was not allowed to do so. In the criminal case, however, he was acquitted. An industrial dispute in relation to the order of retrenchment was raised, inter alia, on the ground that the same was contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. As the conciliation proceeding ended in failure, Delhi Administration referred the matter to the Labour Court on December 5, 1988.
(2.) An award on the said Industrial dispute was made by the second respondent on April 19, 1998. In the writ petition questioning the said award a single Judge relying on Rule 2(f) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules held that the same was not without jurisdiction as the Delhi Administration had the requisite power to refer the Industrial Disputes for adjudication.
(3.) The respondent No. 2 in LPA 490/2002 was posted in Ludhiana office of the appellant He did not mark his attendance and remained absent on various dates. He allegedly left during working hours without permission. A charge-sheet was issued against him which was followed by a departmental enquiry. He was dismissed from service on completion of the enquiry. An industrial dispute was raised before the Labour Authorities of Delhi Administration, Delhi.