DEV PARKASH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL JALANDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the award passed by the Labour Court dated 3.6.2014 and sought for reinstatement with full back wages etc.

(2.) The petitioner while working as a Polishman under the Project Officer, Saw Mills, Punjab State Forest Development Corporation Limited was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, his services were terminated. Petitioner raised industrial dispute. On 3.6.2014 award of the Industrial Tribunal was in favour of the respondents. Thus, the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 17.8.2000, one Shri Ram Lubhaya who was Saw Mill Incharge directed the petitioner to shift the polished racks to a particular place. The said directions/orders of the Saw Mill Incharge was not obeyed by the petitioner. Arising out of these facts, charge-sheet was issued on 20.9.2000 on the allegations that petitioner refused to obey the directions of the Saw Mill Incharge. Further petitioner has misbehaved with the Saw Mill Incharge. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that charge in respect of misbehaving with the Saw Mill Incharge is not forthcoming in specific terms to the extent of constituting charge and it is very vague. Further, Shri Ram Lubaya-Saw Mill Incharge was not one of the cited witnesses in the list of witnesses produced alongwith article of charge. It was also submitted that in the inquiry officer's report dated 19.4.2011, it is evident that there is no discussion or corroborative evidence to the extent that petitioner had disobeyed the order or directions of Saw Mill Incharge. In fact Saw Mill Incharge-Sh. Ram Lubaya has not been cited as a witness so also his evidence has not been taken into consideration for the purpose of holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were got proved. It was further submitted that no doubt petitioner remained ex parte in the inquiry. At the same time, it was bounden duty of the inquiry officer even in the ex parte proceedings, he is required to examine the relevant witnesses in order to prove the charges levelled against an employee. In the inquiry officer's report, there is no discussion of evidence in support of proving the charge. Therefore, inquiry officer's report itself is not a report so as to rely on the same and to impose the penalty of termination on the petitioner. These issues have not been examined by the Labour Court while passing award dated 6.2014. Therefore, award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside.