DCM SRIRAM INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner who is also running a Sugar Unit known as Daurala Sugar Works, Daurala District Meerut challenging the award of the Labour Court, Meerut dated 2.9.1999 passed in Adjudication Case No. 131 of 1997.

(2.) The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the respondent no. 2-Hussain Pal claimed to have been appointed as Weighment clerk in the concerned Sugar Unit and his services are stated to have been terminated without giving any reason on 15.4.1996. However, it is stated that the reasons for terminating the services of respondent no. 2 were given in the order itself to the effect that the respondent no. 2 had issued forged Parchees showing fraudulent purchase of sugar cane. A first information report was also lodged against the respondent no. 2 information of which was also published in the Dainik Jagran news paper on 2.5.1996. On behalf of the employer a written statement 7-A was filed wherein it was stated that the services of the respondent no. 2 were infact terminated on 18.4.1996 at 8 a.m. and not on 15.4.1996 and, therefore, the reference order itself was bad. The case of the petitioner further was that the respondent no. 2 was not a seasonal worker but was engaged in a purely temporary capacity during the crushing season 1989-90 and thereafter he worked during the crushing season from March, 1990 to June, 1990 for a period of 68 days. On completion of the crushing season his services came to an end automatically. When the crushing season 1992-93 commenced the respondent no. 2 gave an application before the management to be again engaged as a Weighment Clerk and the management by oral orders engaged him as a temporary Weighment Clerk. Thereafter as and when his services were required the respondent no. 2 continued to be engaged by the petitioner. The case of the respondent no. 2 further was that he worked continuously during the crushing season 1989-90 up to 1994-95. It was also stated that in the crushing season 1995-96 reservation orders were issued under section 15 of the U.P. Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 and because the respondent no. 2 had worked previously in the earlier crushing season, therefore, he was again engaged by the petitioner-management during the crushing season 1995-96 for the purchase of sugar cane as a temporary Weighment Clerk. During the crushing season of 1995-96 he worked as a temporary Weighment Clerk on 5.3.1996 and 6.3.1996 in the Sugar Cane Purchase Center, Chur.

(3.) The case of the management before the Labour Court was that during the crushing season of 1995-96, the respondent no. 2 had been engaged on 5.3.1996 and 6.3.1996 at the Sugar Cane Purchase Center Chur under instructions that he was not to issue any purchase Parchees against the Rules and purchase Parchee was to be issued only on verifying the Society Parchee from the Growers List. On 4.8.1996 a letter was issued to the petitioner-management from the Secretary Incharge, Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd., Daurala which was received by the management on 8.4.1996 wherein it was alleged that in the Sugar Cane Center, Chur on 5.3.1996 and 6.3,1996 the concerned workman-respondent no. 2 had purchased sugar cane allegedly on 59 Society Parchees out of which on investigation 40 Society Parchees were found to be forged documents and that these 40 Parchees had not been issued by the Society and yet the respondent no. 2 had shown these Parchees in the Grower's Daily Purchase Report. Accordingly a first information report was also lodged against the respondent no. 2. On a preliminary investigation conducted by the management the allegations made by the Secretary Incharge, Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. dated 8.4.1996 were found to be correct which resulted in lost of confidence of the management in the respondent no. 2 on account of which the order dated 15.4.1996 was passed terminating the services of the respondent no. 2.