VINAY KISHORE PHARASI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the award of Labour Court dated 27.7.1995, Annexure -7 to the writ petition, by which the Labour Court has held that there was no illegality in dispensing with the services of the petitioner as Assistant Mechanic with effect from 13.7.1987.

(2.) HEARD Sri Pankaj Miglani learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.N. Sharma learned counsel for respondent, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation.

(3.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Mechanic with the respondent and was confirmed on the said post with effect from 20.7.1974. The services of the petitioner were dispensed with on 13.7.1987 against which the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred to for adjudication to the Labour Court. The services of the petitioner were dispensed with by the appointing authority solely on the ground that he was habitual in remaining absent from the workshop without application, for which he was warned a number of times and he was also awarded minor punishments. Even then the petitioner did not improved and continued to remain absent without any leave. An inquiry was conducted and in inquiry the charges were proved, consequently final order of punishment was passed terminating the services of petitioner with effect from 13.7.1987. The Tribunal affirmed the order by award dated 27.7.95. The petitioner has challenged the award on three grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge sheet was filed by the person who was the inquiry officer and also the punishing authority. I do not find any force in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The charge sheet is to be filed either by the appointing authority or by the inquiry officer. In the present case the appointing authority is the punishing authority and he was also the inquiry officer. As such there was nothing wrong in submitting the charge sheet by the inquiry officer. Further there is no bar of punishing authority to be the inquiry officer. The complaint was filed against the petitioner by another officer who is neither inquiry officer nor the punishing authority. As such there is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.