MADHU SUDAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 19.8.2013 (Annexure P/20) which has upheld the termination order dated 20.5.1998 (Annexure P/7) and the appellate orders dated 7.12.1998, (Annexure P/9) and dated 23.3.1999 (Annexure P/11) along with enquiry reports Annexures P/5 and P/6. From a perusal of the paper-book, it would be clear that the workman raised a demand vide notice dated 7.1.2002 (Annexure P/13) wherein it was pleaded that he was appointed as Special Conductor on 1.1.1994 and worked upto 20.5.1998 when his services were terminated vide Annexure P/7. The enquiry proceedings were challenged on the ground that the service conditions of the workman were governed by rules and regulations namely Haryana CMI Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "1987 Rules") and procedure prescribed under the said rules had not been followed. The enquiry was not fair and proper and no opportunity of defence was afforded to the workman. The appeal of the workman was wrongly rejected.

(2.) The matter was referred to the Labour Court and objection was raised that order was passed in 1998 and the challenge was laid after four years. It was submitted that the petitioner workman was employed on contract which was discontinued after finding him involved in a fraud and misrepresentation amounting to Rs. 11,148 and he had misbehaved with one passenger during his service tenure. He had tampered with the official record and way bills etc. and the provisions of 1987 Rules were not applicable as he was on contract basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1400 per month. The departmental enquiry had been conducted against him and he had cross-examined the official witnesses and had been given opportunity of leading evidence. Thereafter his services were dispensed with. The Appellate Authority had also rejected his case after giving him an opportunity of personal hearing. The management examined Rattan Kumar as MW1 whereas the workman examined himself as AW1 and initially the toward was passed against the workman on 25.8.2010. The workman preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 17521 of 2011 against the same wherein this Court remanded the issue for reconsideration on account of the fact that the Labour Court had failed to deal with the effect as to whether the 1987 Rules were applicable to contractual appointees. Thereafter, the reference has now again been decided against the workman which is the subject-matter of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) The Labour Court noticed the provisions of 1987 Rules and held that the workman did not come within the purview of a Government employee, as he was appointed on contractual basis and therefore, the said Rules were not applicable and the enquiry was not to be held under the 1987 Rules. It was further held that the enquiry was held in the present case and the workman was given adequate opportunity to defend himself and thereafter, order was passed whereby his service contract was terminated. Finding of fact was recorded that there were two charges against the workman and in both the enquiries the workman had been informed and he had participated in the enquiry and had cross-examined the witnesses. He had also in his statement made before the Enquiry Officer begged forgiveness for the wrong entries made by him and assured that he would not repeat any such mistake and had not produced any witness in view of his admission.