YAQOOB ANSARI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. This petition is directed against an award dated 31.10.2011 passed in Adjudication Case No. 51 of 2007 and also the orders dated 9.1.2012 and 8.5.2013 by which certain corrections were made.

(2.) It appears that when the petitioner was taken in the employment of the respondent No. 4 he had submitted his High School Certificate showing His date of birth as 31.1.1964 and had also submitted mark sheet of M.A. IInd year. However, later on during cross checking of the certificates submitted by several other appointees, it was detected that the petitioner had submitted a forged High School Certificate inasmuch as his correct date of birth was 31.1.1961 and not 31.1.1964, it was also found that the mark sheet submitted for M.A. IInd year was also forged and thereafter a show cause notice was issued when an order for termination was passed. This raised an industrial dispute to the aforesaid effect as to whether the termination was justified. The Tribunal/after hearing the parties/held that the petitioner had not disclosed in his evidence as to the nature of work that he was performing and his designation was that of a supervisor. However, it also considered the matter on merits and found that the procedure prescribed for holding domestic enquiry was not followed and thus the Tribunal itself held the enquiry and after considering the statement of an official of the U.P. High School and Intermediate Board found that the High School Certificate was forged and so also the M.A. mark-sheet arid as such it held that the action of the employer was justified.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that once it was held that the petitioner was not a workman, the Tribunal ought not to have proceeded further. The argument does not appear to be correct. The Tribunal found that both the parties have led their evidence and after hearing them on merits, it went on to decide the matter after considering the evidence on record. In fact it held that even on merits, the petitioner did not have any case.