DHARAM PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts of the case arc that the petitioner was appointed workman by the Alias Cycle Industries Limited in its works on June 20, 1978. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on November 29, 1991, that he was absent from his duties since November 14, 1991. This was followed by an enquiry. The Inquiry Officer held the charge proved. As a result, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated March 6, 1992. The petitioner served a notice of demand dated March 11, 1992, and his plea was that no disciplinary action was ever initiated against him for more than 13 years of his service and it was in November, 1991 that on account of charge of the immediate controlling officer of the petitioner there arose some difference of opinion and the petitioner was threatened with dismissal by showing him as willfully absent from duty. On the next following day, i. e. , November 15, 1991, the petitioner instituted a civil suit, in which he prayed for a temporary injunction against the respondent restraining it from showing the petitioner as wilfully absent from duty. Further case of the petitioner is that he was taken in by the Inquiry Officer, who assured that the petitioner would be given full justice. Ultimately he was left with no alternative except to serve the notice of demand after order of dismissal had been passed against him.

(2.) THE Appropriate Government vide order dated September 10, 1992, Annexure P-3, declined to refer the dispute to the Labour Court and observed, in so far as material, as under:

(3.) WRITTEN statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent- management.