THE MANAGEMENT OF SALIGRAM RAI CHUNILAL BAHADUR AND CO. Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule arises out of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. By this petition an award given by the Labour Court has been challenged.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that one Raj Kumar was wording as a driver under the Petitioners. The Petitioners alleged that the driver committed theft of petrol and thus a charge sheet was submitted against him in December, 1959, and according to the management an enquiry was held against him. The charge was proved before the enquiring officer of the management and the enquiring officer submitted his report, on which the driver was dismissed. There was another chargesheet against the driver given on the 6th February, 1960, in which it was stated that he was absent from duty for more than to days without any leave. The driver was given an opportunity to give his explanation. His explanation was submitted, in which he stated that he was ill and thus could not attend to his duties. After considering his explanation the management dismissed him from service.

(3.) THE second point raised is that on the second charge, even if there was no enquiry held the Court should at any rate have applied its naiad we the evidence on the record and come to ate HSWE conclusion whether the charge has or has not been proved prima facie, and if the Court in the present case would have applied its mind, on the very face of it would have come to the conclusion that the .conduct of the employee constituted misordered and thus the termination of his services was justified.