PAWAN KUMAR Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER, HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

(2.) Petitioner joined respondent no.2 - Company as an operator on 13.12.2004. Petitioner and co-employees formed an union under the name of Hero Honda Mazdoor Sangathan and applied its registration on 16.07.2008. Petitioner was subjected to domestic enquiry on certain allegations and respondent-management proceeded to pass order of termination and moved an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "ID Act") before the Labour Commissioner for approval. In the application, respondent management have sought for the following relief:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that insofar as first issue i.e. "Whether the enquiry conducted by the management is fair and proper? If not, to what effect? OPR" is concerned, the same is required to be proved and onus would be on the management for the reasons that respondent-management have filed application under Section 33(2)(b) of ID Act for approval of termination order. Therefore, onus lies on the respondent-management and not on the petitioner-workman. Thus, portion of order dated 08.01.2013 to the extent of 1st issue, order dated 27.08.2013 and order dated 08.01.2014 are liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:-