AMAR KUMAR Vs. RAM GANGA COMMAND(PRIYOJANA)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 24.8.1993 and the order dated 15.7.1994.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute claiming that he was appointed on the post of Chaukidar on permanent basis w.e.f. 17.9.1979 and was posted under the Soil Conservation Officer-II, Fatehpur. It is stated that he was appointed by the Member Secretary of the Ram Ganga Command (Project). After about a year, the Soil Conservation Officer-II, Fatehpur lodged a first information report against the petitioner for committing fraud and impersonation, in the police station Kotwali, District Fatehpur and the police thereafter submitted a chargesheet in the matter and the case was registered as case crime no. 2439 of 1983 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of this the respondent no.1 terminated the services of the petitioner by order dated 12.7.1980 w.e.f. 7.6.1980, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. His submission further is that subsequently, he was acquitted in the criminal case honourably. When the petitioner presented himself before the respondent no.1 to give him joining, the respondent no.1 refused to take the petitioner back in service. Thereupon the petitioner applied for conciliation but no settlement could take place. As such the State Government by order dated 4.6.1991 referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication and the case was registered as Adjudication Case No. 208 of 1991. According to the petitioner, he submitted all his documents and other evidence. The Labour Court by its award dated 24.8.1993 held the termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 7.6.1980 to be illegal and directed the respondent no.1 to reinstate the petitioner in service but denied him backwages on the ground that the petitioner had not been able to state before the Labour Court, as to whether during the period he was out of service he had not been gainfully employed.