DIRECTOR VIGILANCE & SECURITY JABALPUR Vs. KESHAVLAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order Annexure P/7 dt. 6.2.2004 passed by Industrial Court in Civil Appeal No. 647/MPIR/98, this petition has been filed whereby the order of warning issued against the respondent was set-aside.

(2.) ON perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner submitted a complaint against the higher officials of the department as per Annexure P/1. On said complaint, a warning was issued as per Annexure P/3 on 3.2.1996. The said warning was challenged by filing a dispute under Section 31 and 62 of the M.P. Industrial Relation Act, 1960 before the Labour Court. Learned Labour Court recorded the finding that the action has not been taken under the SSO however, the procedure is not required to be followed while passing the order Annexure P/3. On filing an appeal, the Industrial Court found the applicability of the SSO on the employee as well as on employer, but observed that no evidence has been brought and no charge was levelled that the allegation as revealed by the respondent in his complaint is false or found true. However, in such a case, it cannot be said that the complaint was made by the petitioners is false. In absence of any evidence without following the procedure, the order of issuance of warning is unsustainable in law.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that the order of warning is under challenge. The contention of the petitioner is that the said warning can be issued by following a procedure as specified under Rule 16 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. However, the finding recorded by the Industrial Court for holding a departmental enquiry and to find guilty the respondent, then only issuance of order is unsustainable.