DEVENDRA SAHU Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been instituted calling in question the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I. D. No. 8 of 1993 on 29th January 1997.

(2.) THE writ petitioner invoked the mechanism available under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and got raised the dispute relating to the termination of his services, for adjudication before the Labour Court. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was engaged as a Peon of the Civil engineering Department of the respondent-Visakhapatnam Port Trust, he has been selected as a casual unskilled labour and appointed as such with effect from 5th december 1978. He has been brought under the regular establishment of the Civil engineering Department of the Port Trust with effect from 5th June 1980 and while he was working as such, his services came to be suddenly and abruptly terminated by order dated 27th March 1982. The order of termination of employment of the petitioner does not contain any reason, whatsoever. It tersely declares that the services of the petitioner as a Peon have been terminated with effect from 27th March 1982 After Noon, but however, the writ petitioner came to assert that the Vigilance Officer attached to the vigilance wing of the Port trust had conducted an enquiry behind his back and tried to find out the genuineness of the certificate of experience submitted by the petitioner at the time of his initial engagement with Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The Vigilance officer appears to have found that the certificate of experience enclosed by the petitioner vouching that he had worked with the Indian Railways is not a genuine document and, therefore, he had secured employment by way of misrepresentation.

(3.) THE case of the writ petitioner is that he has never been provided with any opportunity to contest the veracity and correctness of the findings recorded by the Vigilance Officer and in fact, he has not been engaged as a Peon in the civil Engineering Department of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust based upon his past experience with the Indian Railways and on the contrary, he had been subjected to process of selection along with all other candidates, whose names have been sponsored by the local employment exchange and upon coming out successfully at the selections, he came to be appointed and it was never a pre-condition for recruitment as a Peon that one is required to possess any experience and, therefore, the termination of his service is bad. The petitioner further contends that the termination of his employment is not for any innocuous reason, but is intended to be inflicted against him as a measure of punishment. He had been denied a fair and reasonable opportunity of setting-forth his case before he is condemned.