GURSEWAK SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURSEWAK Singh petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari and has prayed for the quashment of award Annexure P. 1 passed by respondent No. 1 vide which this respondent held that the services of the petitioner (work-man) were not terminated in an illegal manner by respondent No. 2 and as such the petitioner is not entitled to either reinstatement or any back was as prayed for in the present writ petition.

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that he was working as a cashier with respondent No. 2 Society since 1978. Respondent No. 2 terminated his services in an illegal manner vide resolution No. 2 passed on 12. 4. 1988 on the ground of absence from duty. The petitioner challenged his termination and a reference was made to the Labour Court, Bhatinda by the appropriate Government for the adjudication of the disputes and the learned Presiding Officer, respondent No. 1 passed the award dated 5. 11. 1990 against the petitioner and it was held that the termination of the services of the petitioner was justified. The petitioner has given challenge to the award dated 5,11. 1990 on the ground that respondent No. 2 did not hold any enquiry against him. No retrenchment compensation was paid to him. He further averred in the application that he moved application for the leave without pay w. e. f. 19. 9. 1987 to 18. 9. 1988. He even gave replies to the notices is used by respondent No. 2 by registered post, but those registered letters were not accepted by respondent No. 2 All these facts were not properly considered by respondent No. 1 while passing the impugned award dated 5. 11. 1990. Even prior to the passing of the present orders dated 12. 4. 1988, respondent No. 2 terminated the services of the petitioner on 25. 9. 1982 and those orders were set aside by the Labour Court, Bhatinda vide award dated 10. 11. 1986. The major ground taken up by the petitioner while giving challenge to the award dated 5. 11. 1990 are that no enquiry was conducted against him on the ground of wilful absence from duty, that respondent No. 1 committed a manifest error of law apparent on the record in enquiring the documents of the workman; that it was the management who did not receive the replies to the notices; that the management failed to afford any proper and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner before terminating his services, when he had already completed 9-1/2 years of service.

(3.) I have heard Shri N. K. Joshi, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner with whose assistance i have been able to go through the record of this case.