PANIPAL COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LIMITED, PANI PAT Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this writ petition invoking certiorarial jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court dated 7.9.1993.

(2.) The 2nd respondent Babu Ram was employed in the petitioner's Mills as a Senior Time Keeper. In July, 1990 he made corrections in the dates of birth of the two of the workmen namely Gurdayal, Daftari and Faquir Singh Jamadar. On the ground that the said corrections were made without authority, a chargesheet dated 9/11.12.1981 was served on the 2nd respondent. In reply thereto, the 2nd respondent admitted having corrected the dates of birth in discharge of his duties on the ground and for reasons genuine. He has also mentioned that he has already given explanation in his previous letter. Therefore, he requested to close the file. Not satisfied with the explanation, the management ordered an enquiry and appointed an Enquiry Officer by an order of General Manager dated 28.6.1982. The Enquiry Officer held enquiry after giving notice to the 2nd respondent. During the enquiry, the 2nd respondent requested the Enquiry Officer to allow him to be represented by one Jagmohan Lal and also requested to conduct the enquiry outside the premises of the Mills as the said Jagmohan Lal was not permitted by the management to enter the premises of the Mills. But this request was turned down by the Enquiry Officer on the ground that Jagmohan Lal was asked to join his duties but the fact remains that the said Jagmohan Lal did not join his duties. Therefore, he could not enter the premises of the Mills and he could not represent the workman. Therefore, the workman did not participate in the enquiry that took place after 7.12.1984. The Enquiry Officer found that the' 2nd respondent corrected the dates of birth of the two workmen namely Gurdayal Singh and Faquir Singh causing financial loss to the Mills. On the basis of the enquiry report a show cause notice was issued to the workman to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for. approval of therorders of the termination of service of the 2nd respondent-workman. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak entertained the application and after holding an enquiry came to the conclusion that the termination of service of the workman-2nd respondent is illegal and set aside the same. Challenging the said order of the Industrial Tribunal-cunv Labour Court, Rohtak, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Labour Court erred in reviewing the evidence placed before the Enquiry Officer which is not permissible under law and though the workman participated in enquiry upto 7.12.1984 and thereafter he remained absent and did not participate in the enquiry and admittedly, the workman made the corrections in the dates of birth of two of the workmen namely Gurdayal Singh and Faquir Singh and when the same was admitted and when it was not shown that the corrections in the dates of birth were made under any authority, the services of the workman were validly and legally terminated and, therefore the orders of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court are liable to be set aside.