GEETA RAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the award passed by Labour Court, Bhatinda upholding the termination of the services of the petitioner is erroneous in law and warrants interference by the High Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction is the sole question that needs to be decided in this petition.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the decision of this case are that proceedings under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules') were initiated against the petitioner on the allegation of having wilfully remained absent from duty since January 19, 1986. After inquiry the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated January 19, 1990. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Bhatinda for adjudication. The Labour Court examined the respective cases set up by the contesting parties and held that the workman i. e. the petitioner is not entitled to be reinstated in service because he has been punished on being found guilty of misconduct in an enquiry held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. On the basis of this conclusion, it passed the impugned award refusing to reinstate the petitioner in service.

(3.) THE first contention urged by Shri J. K. Sibal is that the finding recorded by the Labour Court on the issue of violation of the Rules of 1970 and the principles of natural justice is per se erroneous because the Labour Court has while deciding the issue of fairness of the departmental inquiry completely ignored fundamental errors committed by the Inquiry Officer. The second contention urged by Shri Sibal is that the impugned award is liable to be quashed because of the failure of the Labour Court to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Deputy Advocate-General supported the award passed by the Labour Court and urged that the High Court will not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to give relief to a person who has been found guilty of remaining absent from duty. He pointed out that the petitioner did not appear before the enquiry officer inspite of service of notice and, therefore, he should not be allowed to make grievance about the violation of the principles of natural justice and the Rules of 1970. Shri Khosia submitted that even though the Labour Court has not considered the justness of punishment imposed on the petitioner, the High Court should not exercise its power to interfere with the discretion exercised by the competent authority in the matter of award of punishment.