RAM DIYA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these two cases viz. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 8292 and 8293 of l993, challenge the action of the State Government in rejecting their prayer for reference of the dispute to the Labour Court The incident is one. The averments and the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioners are indentical. Consequently, these petitions can be disposed of by a common order. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE petitioners were employed with the Atlas Cycle Industries limited, Sonepat. On May 16, 1992, they asked for leave for two and a half hours. Their request was declined. Instead a "fabricated charge" was levelled against them that they manhandled the Assistant Foreman and their leave applications were torn into pieces. On May 18, 1992, the petitioners were called by the Security Officer. Then identity cards were taken away. They were pushed out of the factory. Vide telegrams dated May 23, 1992, the petitioners were informed that they had manhandled a senior officer of the Paint-shop department After a domestic enquiry, the petitioners were dismissed from service vide order dated September 11, 1992. They served notices of demand dated October 13, 1992 challenging the order of dismissal. The conciliation officer submitted a failure report to the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the appropriate authority who refused to make a reference to the Labour Court It observed that the workman had been dismissed from service after serious charges of misbehaviour with the seniors had beet proved and "to maintain industrial peace". Aggrieved by the action of the competent authority the petitioners have approached this court through the present writ petition. They challenge the order on the ground that the merits of the dispute could not have been examined by the Government.

(3.) A separate written statement has been fifed on' behalf of the management by Mr. I. D. Chugh, the factory Manager. It has been inter alia averred that the writ petition is not competent. The averments made in the writ petition have been controverted. It has been pointed out that the petitioners had not demanded any leave. On the other hand, they had "abused and assaulted. . . . Shri Pankaj Arora, Assistant Foreman. " On the 17th and 18th May, 1993, the petitioners did not report for duty. A regular charge sheet was issued to the petitioners. The identity cards were taken away after they had been suspended from duty during the pendency of the enquiry. The respondent maintains that "a fair and thorough enquiry was held into the charges. . . by Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Deputy Manager Industrial Relations. . . " After the charges were fully proved, the order of dismissal was passed on September 11, 1992. It has also 'been averred that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders are absolutely legal and valid.