ABDUL RAHIM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 6-2-1980 passed by respondent No. 1 in B.S. Case No. 31/1976 (26) whereby and whereunder the labour court, respondent No. 1, has dismissed the complaint filed under Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) by the petitioner.

(2.) IT appears that the complaint under Section 26 of the Act was filed by the petitioner raising therein, inter alia, that he was employed as permanent watchman as security guard in the security department of Tata Engineering Locomotive Company (Telco) since 1-1-1966 and he was posted at Jamshedpur. While he was serving under respondent No. 2, one Sri Sushil Mishra, an employee of respondent No. 2 was caught on 30-3-1976 at the Dispensary Gate with five numbers of rear axle shaft gears and a police case was instituted against him. On that very date, he was on duty at Plant No. 11 in B shift commencing from 4-00 p.m. On 4-4-1976 he was served with a charge-sheet dated 4-4-1976 in which it was alleged that Sri Sushil Mishra came out of the gate where he was on duty at 4-00 p.m. and he did not chock his person and allowed Sri Mishra to go out. For this accusation he was charge-sheeted and the charge disclosed that he was in league with Sri Mishra in committing theft of the property of the Company. Pursuant to the charge-sheet, he submitted his explanation denying the allegation. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was hold and there he was found guilty of several charges and, accordingly, he was dismissed from his services with effect from 25-10-1976. IT was further stated in the complaint that the domestic enquiry was not fair and was conducted against the principles of natural justice as, though the charges against him could not be proved, yet he was dismissed from services.

(3.) THE learned Labour Court, after hearing the parties in this case and considering the documents and evidence on record, ultimately found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and dismissed the case aforeforesaid instituted by the petitioner giving rise to this writ application.