RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Cenioran quashing the impugned orders Annexures P-1, P-2 and P18 annexed with this writ petition whereby their demand for reference of the matter to the Labour Court has been rejected and the appropriate Government has refused to reconsider the matter. They have further sought an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent State of Haryana to refer the dispute regarding dismissal of their service to the Labour Court for adjudication in accordance with law or any other such writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) BRIEF facts as stated in the petition are that petitioner No. 1, Radhey Shyam, was appointed on December 11, 1966 and was working as PVC operator while petitioner No. 2, Jaswant Singh was working as Operator from November 1, 1970. It is further stated in the petition that while there were some differences between the employer and the workmen with respect to certain allowances, the respondent management with a view to victimise the workers resorted to illegal and unjustified dismissal vide identical orders passed in the case of both the Petitioners on November 7, 1990, copy of the order addressed to the Petitioner No. 1 is annexed as An-nexure P-3 with the petition.

(3.) IT is then stated in the petition that a perusal of the order shows that the said order purports to be charge sheet-cum- dismissal order on the face of it, reveals that no enquiry was held before passing the order of dismissal. To seek redressal of their grievances against the illegal and unjustified dismissal without holding an enquiry, the petitioners served demand notice on October 11, 1997, copies of which are annexed as Annexures P-5 and P-6 with the petition respectively, wherein it is stated that the management had been troubling the office bearers and active workers of their union, with a view to weaken the negotiating capability of the union. The management also indulged into the registration and filing of cases against the employees including the petitioners so as to pressurise them to resign from service. Ultimately, the management has dismissed the petitioners-employees illegally and without holding an enquiry which is unjustified and unsustainable.