DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. PRESEDING, OFFIDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against award dated 02.08.1999 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (Ist) U.P. Kanpur in adjudication case no.265 of 1997. The matter which was referred to the Labour Court was as to whether the action of petitioner -employer terminating the service of its workman (Process Technician Grade A) S.D. Ram respondent no.2 w.e.f. 23.07.1997 was just and valid or not? The workman's Services were terminated after domestic enquiry. Charge sheet was given on 16.08.1996 alleging violation of clauses 23 -J and 23 -N of standing orders. The allegation related to an incident of 09.08.1996. The allegation made by compressor and synthesis block of Ammonia Plant of the Factory was that the respondent no.2 Commissioned no.1 Secondary Catchpot LCV without closing the drain valve which resulted in leakage of ammonia in a large quantity in no.1 synthesis area and further the respondent no.2 did not inform about this leakage to the control room and also did not ignite fire alarm and on the other hand he ran away from the Section. It was further alleged that with great difficulty ammonia was controlled and there was further likelihood of severe fire in case leakage had not been promptly checked. The Labour Court held the termination to be illegal hence it directed reinstatement with full back wages. The Labour Court held that there was no negligence of the respondent no.2 in the incident of leakage of ammonia. Clauses 23 -J and 23 -N of the standing orders are quoted below: -

(3.) HOWEVER , in the supplementary affidavit filed on 17.05.2001 by the petitioner it was stated that the respondent no.2 was working with Gas Authority of India (GAI) since 20.05.1998. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 16.03.2011 it has been admitted in para 7 that respondent no.2 is working with GAI with the additional assertion that his family was suffering and one of his sons died in the year 1998 hence he was in need of some job and therefore he joined service of Gas Authority of India Limited District Auraiya as Plant Operator, after obtaining experience certificate from the petitioner company, which was issued by Sri Rajiv Bakshi, the then Manager, (Legal) of the petitioner - company. On the basis of the experience certificates dated 19.01.1998 and 12.05.1998 the Gas Authority of India granted job to the petitioner on 11.04.1998. In the supplementary rejoinder affidavit the fact of issuance of experience certificate by Sri Bakshi has been denied. In para 17 of the supplementary counter affidavit it has been stated that on 20.10.2007 Gas Authority of India terminated the services of respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that it was petitioner's complaint that service was terminated.