PHILADELPHIA MISSION HOSPITAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.2, Ram Karan (hereinafter referred to as the "workman") was employed as a Technician in the Philadelphia Mission Hospital, Ambala city (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner-management"). He joined his services with effect from September 15, 1978. His services were terminated on June 19, 1996. It was claimed by the workman that throughout his employment, his work and conduct had remained good and without any sort of blot or blemish and that the petitioner-management had terminated his services illegally, unlawfully and without any reasons. He further claimed that no charge sheet was served upon him and no enquiry was held. No opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the workman. Terming the aforesaid order as illegal, null and void, unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of natural justice, the respondentman workman raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice dated September 17,1996 under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). A copy of the aforesaid demand notice has been appended as Annexure P/5 with the present petition. The aforesaid demand notice was contested by the petitioner-management and a reply dated October 22, 1996 was filed. The aforesaid reply is also appended as Annexure P/6with the present petition. On failure of the conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as the "Labour Court") by the appropriate Government by making the following reference: "Whether the termination of services of workman Ram Karan is valid and justified? If not so to what relief including back wages is he entitled ?"

(2.) Before the Labour Court, the respondent-workman has also filed his claim statement. Similar averments were made in the claim statement as were mentioned in the demand notice. The aforesaid claim statement was also contested by the petitioner-management by filing a reply In the aforesaid reply, it was claimed that the workman had joined as a Technician on September 15, 1978, but his work and conduct had not remained satisfactory. The petitioner-management claimed that on June, 10 1996, workman along with other employees of the hospital, namely, Ashok Kumar, Joyti Ram, David Soleman Lal and Caterine Soleman Lal entered into the office of Dr. A.C. Hem Raj, Director of the Hospital and physically assaulted, man-handled and threatened him with dire consequences. All the aforesaid persons including the workman sat on dharna in the hospital premises, shouted slogans inspite of the fact that a restraint order was operative against them, restraining them not to hold any demonstration, raise slogans and indulge in unlawful activities within a radius of 100 meters from the premises of the Hospital. It was further claimed that on June 12,1996, the aforesaid persons including the workman again entered the office of Dr. A.C. Hem Raj, Director, and assaulted and misbehaved with him. On the same day, at around 3 p.m. when the Director, Dr. A.C. Hem Raj was leaving in his car, then the respondent-workman along with the other persons dragged him out of the car and thrashed him and also damaged his car. Accordingly, it was claimed that the act of the respondent-workman along with other employees was very grave and serious and it was not desirable and in the interest of employer to keep such a person in service. So, the services of the respondent-workman were terminated on June 19, 1996. On the aforesaid allegations, the termination order of the respondent- workman was defended.

(3.) The learned Labour Court found it as a fact that although were allegations of misconduct against the respondent-workman but, at no stage, had he ever been served with a charge-sheet nor any enquiry was ever conducted against him. In fact, the respondent- workman was not given any opportunity/chance to prove his innocence. Even a notice proposing the punishment to be awarded to him was never issued to him. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned Labour Court found that the termination of the services of the respondent-workman was in violation of the rules, regulations and procedure and, therefore, the aforesaid order was declared illegal, null and void and unconstitutional. Accordingly, the aforesaid order was set aside. As a result of the aforesaid declaration, vide award dated March 26, 2003, the learned Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and full backwages. A copy of the aforesaid award has been appended as Annexure P/8 with the present petition.