P AREYA REDDY Vs. P O LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in this writ petition calls in question the award dated 29.6.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No. 3 of 2003.

(2.) The facts, which are relevant, are as follows:

(3.) The Petitioner was called upon to explain within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said charges as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him. The Petitioner submitted an explanation stating that the statements given by him in his joining report as well as in the Group Insurance Scheme Nomination Form are not inconsistent. He denied the charges levelled against him and stated that he is an illiterate person for which, he preferred to serve as an attendant in the office. He also asserted that P. Arnapurna is his married wife, whose name has been reflected in the official correspondence and denied the claim of the complainant P. Sharma further submitting that said P. Sharma is trying to take revenge against him, as said P. Sharma stays with one P. Purushottam, a mechanic, in the said office. Subsequently, an Enquiring Officer was appointed, who enquired the disciplinary proceeding. In his report, it is reflected that the Petitioner by his letter dated 20.08.1990 intimated the office that Smt. P. Sharma left her before the year 1975 and as per the decision of the "Caste Committee" held on 13.07.1975 in his village, he had given a cultivable land of Ac 1.00 along with some house-hold land to her and thereafter he married Smt. P. Arnapurna. The Enquiring Officer came to the conclusion that there was a Misc. Case relating to demand of interim maintenance filed by said P. Sharma in which, the interim maintenance was awarded, which was confirmed by this Court in a Civil Revision. However, the main case for maintenance is still pending. The Enquiring Officer therefore, concluded that although at the time of joining in the Govt. service, the Petitioner was not living with P. Sharma and their relationship as husband and wife did cease on the basis of the decision of the "Caste Committee" on 13.07.1975, but in the eye of law, they are to be treated as husband and wife and in fact, it is clear that the Petitioner involved himself in bigamous marriage and furnished wrong information at the time of his entering into the Govt. service. Therefore, both the charges are held to be proved against him.