RAM ASREY Vs. LABOUR COURT II KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Asrey, Farid Ahmad and Iqbal Ahmad, petitioner Nos. 1,2 and 3 respectively, have filed this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution praying for quashing the Award, dated march 24, 1981 (Annexure '7' to the writ petition) and for setting side the orders of dismissal, dated May 1, 1971 passed by M/s. Elgin Mills co. Ltd. (Mill No. 2), respondent No. 2 against the petitioners. Facts may be briefly stated. Petitioner Nos- 1 and 2 were working as turners and petitioner No. 3 was working as a builder under respondent No. 2. On the allegation that the petitioners had assaulted one junior officer on April 22, 1971 around 5. 30 p. m. in front of the factory-gate, the petitioners were charge-sheeted and a domestic inquiry was held against them. . On completion of the inquiry, the petitioners were found guilty and dismissed from service on May 1, 1971. vide Annexure '16' a copy of the dismissal order in respect of petitioner No. 1.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioners raised an industrial dispute through their Union. Conciliation proceedings followed but the same ended in failure. On receipt of the conciliation failure report, the State Government referred the following dispute to the labour Court (II), Kanpur on September 22, 1971 : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_189_FLR61_1990Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) SRI I qbal Ahmad Sri Muney Mia Welder 13-A 3. The reference was registered as Adjudication Case No. 373 of 1971. Parties appeared before the Labour Court, filed their written statements and also adduced evidence. By its order, dated May 21, 1973 the Labour court found that the domestic inquiry held against the petitioners was not fair and proper and was against the principles of natural justice. Respondent No. 2 challenged that order in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition no. 6085 of 1973 which was dismissed by order, dated February 19, 1980 passed by this court without expressing any opinion on merits of the case. Thereafter adjudication proceedings recommended and further evidence was led by respondent No. 2 before the Labour Court which proceeded to examine for itself if the charges against the petitioners had been proved.