WAZIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Wazir Singh petitioner was appointed on November 21, 1973 as a Diesel Pump Attendant in the Transport Department in the State of Haryana for a period of six months. He continued in service thereafter on temporary/ad hoc basis. His case for regularising his services was taken up for consideration by the competent authority and it transpired that for the year 1975-76 he had earned an adverse confidential report in which his integrity had been doubted. It was observed by the Reporting Officer that he was in the habit of misappropriating diesel at the pump being a Diesel Pump Attendant. Consequently, in terms of the Government instructions his services were not regularised and he was removed from service on October 16, 1984. This termination gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala. After recording evidence of the parties and on a consideration of the same, the Labour Court found that the petitioner had been retrenched by the Transport Department and that at the time of terminating his services he was offered retrenchment compensation which he refused to accept. It was further found that the management sent the compensation through money orders which again he did not receive. Since the retrenchment compensation was offered at the time of termination, the Labour court held that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act stood complied with. Consequently, the reference was decided by the Labour Court as per its award dated October 8, 1986 against the workman and in favour of the management. It is this award that has been challenged in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) Having heard counsel for the parties and after perusing the impugned award I find no infirmity therein. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are based on the evidence that was led by the parties before it and in view of those findings there is option but to hold that the order of termination was legal and justified.

(3.) In the result, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.