(1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the award passed by the Labour Court dated 9.7.1982
(2.) Mr.L.D Adalkha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has argued that award suffers from basic infirmity as the Trial Court has not taken into consideration that in the complaint, which was the basis for the termination of the services of the petitioners, no direct or legal evidence was brought on record. Learned counsel for the pelilioners further contended that even from the hare reading of the complaint, on the basis of which the services of the petitioners were terminated, it would he apparent that the complaint was made alter the alleged incident at the instance of Management. Yet another submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court is that though the complaint was dated 6.5.1980, the petitioner were issued show cause notice on 8.5.1980 and the petitioners replied to the respondent on 9.5.1980 that the allegations and charges made in the letter dated 6.5.1980 were wrong, baseless and false and inter alia requested the respondent to supply the photocopy of the alleged report, which was not supplied to them, but straight away the services of the petitioners were terminated vide letter of the respondent dated 12.5.1980. Non-supply of vital document to the petitioner violated the principle of natural justice. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, Mr.Adalkha has contended that the impugned award is patently perverse and is liable to he set aside.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr.D N Vohra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has defended the award on the basis of the reasoning, which has been mentioned in the impugned award. The first contention vehemently convassed before me by Mr.Vohra is that the writ petition be dismissed as the same has been filed after a period of 3 years. In support of his argument, he has cited State of Mudhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai & ors. 1964 (6) SCR 261 and 0 P Malhotra & ors. v Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1973 SLJ 1005.