VIJAY PAL SINGH Vs. N.D.M.C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has assailed the Award dated 7th April, 2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal in ID No. 143/2001 holding that the petitioner workman was not entitled to any relief of reinstatement and regularization.

(2.) IT would be appropriate to narrate the facts in brief: The petitioner workman was employed as a muster roll employee with the respondent NDMC with effect from 1st June 1983. He worked on the said post till 19th June, 1993 and his services were terminated on 20th June, 1993 on the ground that he was implicated in a case of stealing sprinkling valves. Charges were framed under Sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code and the said case was decided on 6th August, 1994 whereunder the petitioner workman was convicted. However, the petitioner workman was released on probation on 8th August, 1994. The petitioner workman made several representations to the respondent NDMC for taking him back into service, both before and after his release. In response, vide letter dated 30th August, 1996, the Director of Horticulture rejected the prayer of the petitioner workman. Pursuant to this, the petitioner workman made further representation to the Vice -Chairman of the respondent Council and thereafter raised an industrial dispute. In the said proceedings, the Learned Presiding Officer vide award dated 7th April, 2004 decided the reference against the petitioner workman and held that not only was the termination not illegal, but that the petitioner workman was not a fit person to be given a fresh appointment.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner workman further contends that the termination order itself was void, as it was in violation of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was stated that his services were verbally terminated on 20th June, 1993 without making any enquiry and without even serving him with a charge -sheet. Hence principles of natural justice were also violated by the respondent NDMC. It is claimed that the petitioner workman was given an assurance by the respondent NDMC that he would be reinstated depending on the outcome of the case pending against him. Mala fides are also alleged against the respondent NDMC and it is submitted that while his juniors have been retained and even regularized in service, he has been thrown out.