VED VRAT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition impugning the award dated 5.10.2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court - II, New Delhi in ID No. 77/2000. Some undisputed facts, leading to the present petition, are that the petitioner, while seeking employment in the Bank of India (respondent no. 3 herein) as subordinate staff (sepoy), had submitted an Educational Certificate dated 24.6.1970 wherein his date of birth was shown as 1.12.1954 and his roll no. was shown as 17170. On the basis of the age of the petitioner as exhibited in the Educational Certificate dated 24.6.1970, the bank authorities found him eligible and appointed him in the Sub -Staff Cadre w.e.f. 11.2.1980. Subsequently, when the bank authorities got the Educational Certificate dated 24.6.1970 verified it was revealed that the said certificate was fake and the information regarding the age of the petitioner provided therein was false. Accordingly, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and a charge sheet dated 20.7.1993 was issued to him on the ground that he had submitted a forged and doctored certificate as proof of age in order to get employment in the bank. The charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be true and he was consequently dismissed from service w.e.f. 27.12.1996.

(2.) PURSUANT to the dismissal of his services with respondent no. 3, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute. The industrial dispute was referred by the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court - II, New Delhi vide notification L -12012/42/2000 IR(B -II) dated 17.7.2000. The reference was in the following terms:

(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of seeking employment with respondent no. 3 (hereinafter, "the respondent"), the petitioner had wrongly submitted his the date of birth as 1.12.1954 only on the instructions of the employer and not due to his fault. However, to show his bona fides the petitioner had handed over the original certificates showing the correct date of birth as 15.10.1949 to the employer. It is submitted that the petitioner had asked his original certificates be returned to him but the respondent did not return the same. The respondent conducted a formal inquiry after which the services of the petitioner were terminated. The appeal against the order of termination was also rejected on 1.8.1997. Despite legal notice no proper response was given by the respondent and the petitioner was forced to file a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move the Industrial Tribunal.