H.R.T.C. Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed against the award passed by the Labour Court -cum -Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala in reference No. 284 of 2003 dated 23.4.2005.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the appropriate Government has made the following reference to the Labour Court -cum -Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala: - Whether the termination of services of Shri Rajinder Kumar S/o Shri Manohar Lal, Ex. Conductor by the Managing Director, H.R.T.C. Shimla, 2. The Divisional Manager, H.R.T.C, Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra, H.P., 3. The Regional Manager, H.R.T.C, Pathankot w.e.f. 18.2.1998 on the basis of enquiry report is proper and justified? If not, what relief of back wages, seniority, service benefits and amount of compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled to

(3.) THE thrust of the submission of workman before the Labour Court -cum -Industrial Tribunal was that his removal could not be ordered by the Regional Manager, H.R.T.C, Pathankot and the competent authority to pass the order of his removal was D.M., H.R.T.C. on the basis of CCS (CCA) Rules, as well as Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation Service Regulations, 1996, made applicable on 23.3.1996. Paras 3 and 4 of the claim petition are reproduced below: That the removal of the petitioner was ordered on 18.2.1998 by the Respondent No. 3 (RM HRTC Pathankot) whereas the Respondent No. 2 (i.e. the DM, HRTC) was the competent authority to impose the penalty of removal i.e. a major penalty under Rule 11 (viii) read with Rule 5 and Annexure -A of the HRTC Service Regulations, 1996, as applicable from 23.3.1996 onwards. That the removal of the petitioner on 18.2.1998 by an incompetent authority in violation of the HRTC Service Regulations and Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, is illegal and void ab initio. The petitioner -Corporation has made the following averments in reply to paras 3 and 4: Contents of this para are admitted to be correct. It is submitted that the termination has been made on the basis of enquiry report conducted by the enquiry officer. Moreover, the competent authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner after careful consideration and the order dated 28.8.1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 are legal and valid. Contents of this Para are wrong, false, incorrect and hence denied. The services of the applicant/petitioner was removed by the competent authority vide order No. HRTC/PTK/Estt/PF -Vig -93/98 -11536 -11542 dated 28.2.1998 as per rule and regulations.