PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS Vs. RAMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged the Award, dtd. 1/9/2012, passed by the Court of learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, H.P. in Reference No.54 of 2009, titled as Ramesh Chand Versus State of H.P. & others, in terms whereof, the Reference made by the Appropriate Government, under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was answered by learned Labour Court as under:-

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that on an industrial dispute raised by respondent/workman, the following Reference was made by the Appropriate Government to learned Labour Court:-

(3.) The claim put up by the workman/claimant (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant') before learned Labour Court was that he was engaged as a daily wage Beldar by the employer in the month of September, 1991, though he was discharging the duties of a Supervisor. Rather than conferring work charge status upon him upon completion of eight years of service as such, followed by regularization, on 26/2/1999, the claimant was served with one month's notice of retrenchment from service. The basis for termination of services of the claimant was his alleged misconduct, which allegation as per the claimant was false and frivolous. As per the claimant, no inquiry, as envisaged in law, was conducted, nor the principles of natural justice were complied with by the respondent. He was condemned un-heard. It was further his case that the alleged misconduct was relating to the charge of tampering with the official record, on which allegation a criminal case was also registered against the claimant, i.e. Criminal Case No.6-I of 2001, titled as State Versus Ramesh Chand, in which, he was acquitted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. on 30/7/2002, which acquittal attained finality. It was further the contention of the claimant that he was forced to concede to the allegations levelled against him by the concerned SubDivisional Officer.