SHEO SAMPAT LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an award 01 the Labour Court made in Adjudication case No. 1 of 1970. The present petitioner Sampat Lal was appointed as an hourly rated workman in the year 1958 in the Engineering Department of Messrs. Eveready Flash Light Company, Lucknow. Three charge-sheets dated 11th December 1967, 20th December, 1967 and 22nd December, 1967 were served on him and a domestic enquiry, on the basis of the said charge-sheets, was made. Firstly, Sampat Lal had avoided to take delivery of the said charge-sheets. Then on 5th January 1968 the charge sheets, along with their Hindi translation, were published in Swatantra Bharat newspaper. Sampat Lal submitted his explanation with respect to first charge-sheet on 6th January, 1968, and with respect to the other charge-sheets on 7th January, 1966. Having found that the explanation furnished by Sampat Lal was not satisfactory, it was considered necessary to hold a domestic enquiry. Hence, the Works Manager of the company appointed Sri J.M. Kishan to hold the enquiry. Sampat Lal was informed of it and was told that the enquiry would be hold on 11th January, 1968 by Sri J.M. Kishan at 9 A.M. in Carlton Hotel. He, along with his two representatives attended the enquiry on 11th January 1968 and prayed that the venue of the enquiry may be shifted to the factory premises. 27th January 1968 was then fixed for holding the enquiry in the factory. Sampatlal Lal appeared on 27th January 1968 before the Enquiry Officer and handed over a letter to him requesting that there should be no enquiry in regard to the charge-sheets dated 20th December, 1967 and 22nd November, 1967 as the matter was sub-judice. He also prayed that the enquiry with respect of charge-sheets dated 11th December 1967 be postponed to 29th January, 1968 to enable him to arrange his defence. Sampat Lal was informed in writing that the enquiry would be held in regard to all the three charge-sheets on 29th January, 1968. He, however, did not attend the proceedings on that date, nor did he furnish any information about his inability to attend the enquiry. The enquiry was, therefore, made against him ex parte. 12 witnesses were examined on behalf of the management in regard to the first charge-sheet. Similarly, 5 witnesses were examined in regard to the second charge-sheet and 11 witnesses were examined in regard to the third charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Works Manager on 15th February 1968 holding that all the charges had been established against Sampat Lal. The Local Works Manager then forwarded the report of the enquiry officer to the Central Works Manager at Calcutta requesting him that the orders on the enquiry report may be passed by the latter because the former had appeared as a witness during the course of the enquiry. The Central Works Manager found the charges against Sampat Lal proved and passed an order dismissing Sampat Lal from service with effect from 23rd February 1968. Approval of the Industrial Tribunal at Lucknow, sought by the employers, for taking that action, was accorded on 18th April 1968. The workman Sampat Lal, on the other hand, asserted that he was a permanent employee in that concern, Eveready Flash Light Company, Lucknow, and that he was a trade-union worker and had been in his village on leave from 11th to 16th December, 1967. While he was on leave, he was intimated that certain allegations had been made against him and that he was placed under suspension for six days with effect from the date of the expiry of the leave. That suspension was extended from time to time and ultimately his services were terminated. His contention was that he had been victimised for his trade union activities, that he was paid no wages for suspension period, and that the suspension order itself was illegal being violative of standing orders of the concern. He also contended that the dismissal order was passed by a person not authorised to pass it.

(2.) As many as five issues were framed by the Labour Court on the pleadings of the parties. Issue 1 was not pressed. The tribunal held that Sampat Lal was issued proper charge-sheets, that the employers had conducted domestic enquiry fairly and properly, and that Sampat Lal had not been victimised. It was also held that Sri M.F. Murry, General Works Manager was competent under the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders of the concern to issue dismissal order to Sampat Lal. The Labour Court found no merits in the reference and held that Sampat Lal was not entitled to any relief whatsoever. It made its award accordingly.

(3.) The petitioner, Sampat Lal, has now come to this Court.