LAWS(P&H)-1998-11-1

UNITED ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On November 17, 1998
UNITED ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s United Engineering Enterprises (hereinafter described as the Petitioner) have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and seeks quashing of the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Disputes Tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that respondent-workman Ram Avtar had joined the petitioner management on July 1, 1974 at a salary of Rs. 335/- per month as a Turner; he was the President of the Union of the petitioner management; there was a settlement between the parties on May 7, 1979; the Management was not implementing the same; the respondent-workman had made a complaint on September 10, 1979 for non-implementation of the same. On January 11, 1979, the workman contended that Karamjeet Singh and Surender Singh gave beating to him the petitioner-management was also with them his services were terminated on September 10, 1979 without any inquiry or charge-sheet.

(3.) A reference was made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner's claim was that the services of the respondent were discharged; the allegations against the workman was that he was in the habit of making false and defamatory complaints to different authorities; his behaviour in the factory was also the same, he disobeyed the orders of his superiors; he propagated for less production in the factory; he was mischievous and used to mislead the workmen; he used to stop the workmen from working. On January 1, 1979, one of the electricians Surender Singh was mis-handled; the scene was created in the factory; the activities of the workman became unwanted, uncontrollable and unmanageable. In this situation, it was difficult to charge-sheet the workman and to hold an inquiry. No person was coming forward to make a statement against him. Thereupon, the Management terminated the services of the respondent-workman.