POLYMERS PAPER LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tersenessly, the facts, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that Vijay Paul Singh-workman (Respondent No. 2) (for brevity "the workman") was employed as pleating machine-man, with the management of Petitioner Polymers Paper Limited (for short "the management") since 222.1979 at a monthly salary of Rs. 404-50 P. The workman was stated to have been suspended, without any charge sheet or inquiry and the management-did not supply any charge sheet of alleged domestic inquiry conducted against him on 15.6.1985 or suspension order, despite repeated requests. He (workman) filed the reply (Annexure P8) to the show cause notice dated 19.7.1985 (Annexure P7) on the same day and ultimately, he was dismissed from service with effect from 20.7.1985, by virtue of termination order (Annexure P9).

(2.) The workman claimed that as he was the President of the workmen union, there fore, he was a protected workman, but his services were illegally terminated, without following the due procedure as a result of vengeance by the management. In all, according to the workman that since his services were illegally terminated without any charge sheet or inquiry and without providing any opportunity of being heard, so, he prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. In this manner, the workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for brevity "Labour Court") by the appropriate government, in view of the provisions of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").

(3.) The management contested the claim of the workman and filed its written statement (Annexure P11) before the Labour Court, inter-alia stoutly denying all the allegations contained in the statement of his (workman) claim and prayed for its dismissal. Additionally, it was pleaded that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the inquiry is vitiated, then the management craved for the leave of the Court to permit it to adduce the evidence in support of its case as it is entitled to do so under the various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.