H M T LIMITED Vs. L K VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought to quash the order dated 12 -04 -1998 passed by the Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority whereby suspension and removal from services of the respondent No.1, has been set aside.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as per the petition are that the petitioner, H.M.T. Limited is employer and Mr. L.K. Verma, respondent No.1 was its employee as Safety Offier posted at Ranibagh, Nainital. Respondent No. 1 allegedly committed certain misconduct for which he was placed under suspension during the final enquiry. The respondent No.1 filed appeal before the Labour Commissioner under Rule 14 of the U.P. Factories (safety Officers) Rules, 1984. Simultaneously, the respondent No.1 filed a writ petition No. 10684 of 1996 before the Allahabad High Court. The said writ petition was disposed of, allegedly without notice to the petitioner, with the direction that appeal against the suspension order be decided by the Labour Commissioner within the period fixed by the said Court. Meanwhile, on completion of enquiry a show cause notice dated 08 -01 -1998 (copy Annexure1 to the writ petition) was issued to the respondent No.1 as to why punishment of dismissal be not awarded against him. On this the respondent No. 1 allegedly acted on hot haste and persuaded the Labour Commissioner, respondent No. 2 to issue notice to the petitioner to appear before the Labour Commissioner on 02 -04. 1998. The petitioner requested the Labour Commissioner to adjourn the hearing for a dam after 15 -04 -1998 as petitioner was busy in work relating to closing of financial year. However, the Labour Commissioner chose to fix 09 -04 -1998 as a date for hearing of appeal which was a holiday. No grounds of appeal filed by Mr. L.K. Verma, respondent No. 1 were allegedly given to the petitioner and even after request for adjournment, respondent No. 2 proceeded with the hearing of the appeal. In the meantime, reply dated 21 -02 -1998 given by respondent No.1 in response to the show cause notice dated 08 -01 -1998 was considered and respondent No. 1 was dismissed from the services. The respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order deciding the appeal whereby, not only the suspension order but also the order of dismissal from service was set aside. Challenging the said impugned order is illegal and arbitrary this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1 filed the counter affidavit and admitted that the he was Safety Officer with the petitioner company. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the services of the respondent No.1 were governed by the U.P. Factories (Safety Officers) Rules, 1984. For violation of the Rules and a crime case No. 478 of 1991 was registered against the top authority of the petitioner company for prosecution against which Mr. N. Sethumadhavan, the occupier of the Factory moved an application before High Court of Allhabad under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was dismissed on 2002 -1998. After this Management of H.M.T. United (petitioner) was at daggers drawn with the respondent No. 1 and the Labour Commissioner. The charge - sheet in question was result of the same dispute. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that no show cause notice was given prior to the passing of suspension order. The enquiry was hurriedly conducted without affording sufficient opportunity to the respondent No. 1. In writ petition No. 10684 of 1996, Allahabad High Court directed the Labour Commissioner to dispose of the statutory appeal within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order dated 21 -02 -1998 passed by the said Court. The Labour Commissioner (respondent No.2) accordingly acting on the directions of the Court decided the appeal by a speaking order on 12 -04 -1998. In the counter affidavit it is further alleged that under Rule 8 of the U.P. Factories (Safety Officers) Rules. 1984 suspension from services itself is a punishment and the petitioner company could not have awarded the same without affording any opportunity to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has further stated in his counter affidavit that he did not get opportunity to cross examine the witnesses as such according to respondent No. 1 the impugned order was justified.