RAM NATH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Siddharth, Counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel for respondent No. 1. Brief facts of the case are that services of workrman the petitioner, who was employed as wireman in the establishment of respondent No. 2, were terminated on the ground that he instigated other workmen, abused and raised slogans etc. disturbing peace of the industrial establishment, as a result of which workmen in the establishment abstained, did not report for duty and struck the, work.

(2.) THE petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the State Government which was referred for adjudication to Labour Court, Dehradun and later on transferred ,to Labour Court, Meerut where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 17 of 1992. The workman and employer filed their documentary as well as oral evidence. Two additional issues were framed by the Labour Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties, as follows:<IMG>case1165_(1).jpg</IMG> vide order dated 8. 7. 1996 the Labour Court decided additional issue No. 1 against the workman-petitioner holding that domestic enquiry was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

(3.) THEREAFTER, the workman filed a review petition praying that said order be reviewed. His review application was also rejected by the Labour Court by order dated 31. 8. 1998 as not maintainable on the ground that Labour Court has no power to review. As regards additional issue No. 2. it was considered alongwith the award dated 16. 5. 2007 along with main reference order. The Labour Court by the Impugned award dated 16. 5. 2007 decided the reference as well as additional issue No. 2 also against the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioner has come up in the present writ petition. Contention of the Counsel for petitioner is that findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse and against material evidence on record. The workman has placed this argument before the Labour court in extension as follows:<IMG>case1165_(2).jpg</IMG> It is urged that from the above it was evident that workman in was present in the establishment.