SUKHDEV RAJ Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUKHDEV Raj was employed as a Turner with Escorts Limited at Mathura Road, Faridabad, in march, 1965. In December, 1967, he was served with a charge-sheet listing four charges containing allegations of inefficiency, of not devoting full time to the work and of using obscene language towards his superiors. After the service of the charge-sheet, the petitioner was put under suspension. The explanation offered by Sukhdev Raj was not found satisfactory and a departmental enquiry was then ordered. After a protracted enquiry the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on March 29, 1968, wherein Sukhdev Raj was found guilty of having used abusive language towards his superiors. On the basis of this inquiry report, Sukhdev Raj was dismissed from service. He then raised a labour dispute which was referred to the Labour Court by the order of the Government of Haryana. The term of the reference was whether the termination of the services of Sukhdev Raj was justified and in order and, if not, to what relief he was entitled. The labour Court found the order of dismissal passed against Sukhdev raj to be justified and the workman then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the management Exhibit P-2 and the award of the tribunal Exhibit P-4.

(2.) THE principal ground on which the challenge to the award is posed on behalf of the petitioner is that proper opportunity to defend him was not provided during the inquiry and that the findings of the learned Tribunal to the contrary were patently erroneous. In support of this contention, reference is made to two circumstances. It is firstly pointed out that there was violation of standing order No. 23 with the result that the workman could not get the assistance of two helpers in his defence. The second circumstances to which reference is made is that on Mar. 14, 1968, the inquiry proceedings were wound up as the co-workers, who had to help the petitioner in the inquiry, had not been able to come and that, after recording the order winding up the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses of the management behind his back. It is then urged that the evidence which was recorded in the absence of the petitioner was used to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had used abusive language towards Mota Singh Foreman and that this conclusion resulted in the order of dismissal. In substance the grievance of the petitioner is that the rules of natural justice have been violated and that proper opportunity has not been afforded to the petitioner to defend himself.

(3.) THE petition was contested on behalf of the management and the factual position with regard to the two circumstances enumerated above was seriously controverted. It was pointed out that the petitioners himself had categorically stated before the Labour Court that he has no other grievance except that the inquiry officer had not allowed him the help of the two co-workers and that, as he had himself withdrawn from the inquiry, there was no other course open to the Inquiry Officer but to record the evidence in his absence.