MUNESH KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ganesh Prasad, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case, giving rise to the dispute, are as under: The petitioner was appointed as peon on temporary basis on 1.3.1999 in Nagar Panchayat Badapur on a vacancy caused due to death of Nawab Khan. The said appointment of the petitioner was made by the Executive Officer after approval by the Chairman vide order dated 30.3.2000. His services were regularised and he was given status of permanent employee. The Chairman, Nagar Panchayat vide order dated 9.5.2003 placed the petitioner under suspension in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. A charge sheet was issued levelling the following three charges.

(3.) An Inquiry officer was appointed, who started the enquiry and subsequently new inquiry officer was appointed. The newly appointed inquiry officer without conducting any order enquiry in as much neither any date or time was fixed nor the petitioner was afforded any opportunity to examine or cross-examine any witness before the inquiry officer, even oral examination of any witness was not done by the inquiry officer nor the department produced any evidence in support of the charges, the copy of the enquiry report was also not supplied to the petitioner and vide order dated 8.8.2003, his services were terminated. The petitioner went up in appeal before the Commissioner which was also dismissed vide order dated 24.09.2005. The petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition no. 69395 of 2005 which was dismissed on 9.11.2005 with liberty to avail the alternative remedy before the Labour Court. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court and was registered as Adjudication Case no. 22 of 2007. After respective pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the Presiding Office, Labour Court found that in so far as charges no. 2 and 3 are concerned, they are not proved against the petitioner-workman. However, in so far as charge no. 1 is concerned, the appointment being illegal in violation of the Government Order, the Labour Court returned the finding that since the appointment has been made in violation of the Government hence it was illegal and the petitioner has no right to continue on the post but considering the facts that he was given appointment, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 30,000.00.