D SETTU Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT VELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the award of the first respondent dated 3.12.1996 in I.D.No.1147 of 1993. THE petitioner is a workman and the dispute relates to his non-employment. THE petitioner, who joined the services of the second respondent as a watchman on 17.11.1975 on a consolidated pay of Rs.60/- per month, was employed on a regular basis from the year 1978 in a regular scale of pay. He was placed under suspension by order dated 23.11.1978 and was issued with a charge sheet. THEreafter, his services came to be terminated by order dated 30.9.1979. THE petitioner initially did not raise any dispute as against the order of termination. In the year 1992, the petitioner moved the Conciliation Machinery under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act by filing a petition dated 20.5.1992 invoking Section 2A(2) of the said Act. On failure of Conciliation, the petitioner moved the first respondent Labour Court on 30.7.1993.

(2.) IN the above stated background, on behalf of the second respondent, it was contended that Section 2A(2) itself came into statute book only from 1.11.1988 and therefore, the same will not apply to the termination of the petitioner, which occurred on 30.9.1979. It was then contended that when the petitioner was issued with the charge memo dated 20.1.1979 with the enclosures, he submitted his reply, Ex.M.4, stating that he produced a false certificate on account of his anxiety to get the job and the temptation was mooted by one Mr.Vijayarangan. The charge against the petitioner was that he had studied only upto 7th standard in the Board High School, Kannamangalam and he did not complete even 8th standard as he discontinued his studies. It was, therefore, alleged that the certificate produced by the petitioner as though he had passed 8th standard from the Harijan Welfare Elementary School, Arakkonam, was a false one. The second respondent, therefore, contended that when he admitted the guilt, there was no scope for any further enquiry and therefore, the order of dismissal passed on the charge sheet issued to the petitioner and the admission made by him should not be interfered with. It was further contended that the petitioner had no explanation to offer to cover the abnormal delay in raising the dispute, which was after more than ten years and therefore, on that ground as well, the claim was liable to be rejected. The first respondent-labour Court accepted all the above contentions of the second respondent while rejecting the claim of the petitioner.