HINDI SAHITYA SAMMELAN PRAYAG Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the impugned award dated February 5, 1983 passed by the Labour Court, Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 122 of 1989. The aforesaid award was enforced by publication on the notice board of the Labour Court under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on July 12, 1993.

(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is claimed that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag is an Educational Institution/University and the examinations conducted by the Society are recognised by the Government of India as well as various Universities of the Country. Respondent No. 2 is alleged to have been appointed on the post of Clerk in the year 1969 by the petitioner in the Examination Department. He issued a charge- sheet on October 31, 1987 and was dismissed from employment for indulging in major misconduct w.e.f. August 11, 1988 after holding a domestic enquiry.

(3.) The workman being aggrieved by the order of dismissal raised an industrial dispute against his termination of service. On conciliation proceedings having failed the following matter of dispute was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Allahabad where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 122 of 1989. " Vernacular matter omitted." Before the Labour Court respondent No. 2 filed his written statement of demand inter alia, stating that the enquiry was against the principle of natural justice and that the Management had failed to prove the charges levelled against him. In para 11 of the written statement it was alleged that before passing the dismissal order dated August 2, 1988 and the employer had not served him with any report and show cause notice. It is stated that thus the employer had violated the mandatory provision of Model Standing Order and therefore, the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service was illegal and liable to be quashed.