DEFENCE RESEARCH EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated 04.07.2009 (Annexure No. 2) passed by the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 45 of 2004, whereby the learned labour Court has set aside the termination order of respondent No. 2 Smt. Neeta Tuteja passed by the petitioner and directed to reinstate her (Smt. Neeta Tuteja) in service and to pay wages in accordance with law. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this writ petition are that petitioners' Society is known as Defence Research Education Society is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, and the society is running an institution in the name of Raksha Anusandhan Vidhyalaya, Vigyan Vihar, wherein teaching and non-teaching staffs were engaged. Respondent No. 2 was appointed as L.D.C. (Lower Divisional Clerk) pursuant to an appointment order dated 30.08.1993, this fact is not disputed. An office memorandum was issued on 23.12.2002, by the President of the society proposed to hold an inquiry against the respondent No. 2 in respect of the charges of misconduct, whereby the respondent No. 2 was asked to submit a written statement of her defence with a specific instruction.

(2.) In reply to the said office memorandum, the respondent No. 2 submitted her written comments, wherein she admits the guilt in respect of the charge No. 1 and so far as the submissions in respect of the charge No. 2 and 3 are concerned, that was given in a very casual manner. Therefore, after considering the reply, the respondent No. 2 was dispense with from her service on 31.01.2003. Aggrieved by the order of petitioner, the respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 2A of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, for making reference to the Labour Court before the Conciliation Officer. The conciliation failed and the matter was referred under Section 4k of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, by Deputy Labour Commissioner. He made reference by the Government Order dated 12.02.2004, to the fact whether the services of Smt. Neena Tuteja, Lower Divisional Clerk has been dispense with from 06.02.2013, by her employer in a proper and legal manner. If not so, the concerned workman is entitled to get benefit and relief.

(3.) The notices were issued to both the parties by the Labour Court in their turn, the employer as well as the workman filed their written statement/reply before the Labour Court. Before the learned Labour Court the employer as well as the workman were properly represented and the Labour Court after hearing the petitioners as well as the workman came to the conclusion that since no inquiry has been conducted in the case of the respondent No. 2/workman and no effort has been made before the Labour Court to prove the charge despite of the opportunity given to the employer and has set aside the termination order and directed to reinstate her in services.