LAWS(PAT)-2004-11-34

SURESH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On November 10, 2004
SURESH PRASAD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) On the last date it was submitted before the Court that the matter is not proceeding before the Labour Court and the petitioners who are terminated employees are suffering a great hardship. This Court called for a report from the concerned Labour Court. The Presiding Officer, Industrial. Tribunal, Patna, has sent the report. According to him, office of the Labour Court is vacant but since after passing of the impugned order on 16.6.2003, the present petitioners made an application before the Labour Court that they want to file a writ petition in the High Court and thereafter they went on making prayers for adjournments of the case enabling them to file the stay order from the High Court. When these facts were brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioners, he submitted that the petitioners never prayed for time to produce the stay order but in fact they prayed for time on the ground that the matter is pending in the High Court. The fact remains that the matter was adjourned because of the prayers made by the petitioners and not because of the lapses on the part of the management or on the part of the Presiding Officer of the Court.

(3.) Coming to the merits of the matter, it has to be seen that a reference was made by the State Government into the validity of the termination of the petitioners. The management appeared before the Labour Court and filed its reply. In its reply, they submitted that no show cause was given, no charge-sheet was served and no inquiry was made. It was submitted by them that looking to the surcharged atmosphere and the misconduct on the part of the employees in mishandling the Vice Chairman of the establishment, they had to terminate their services. It was further pleaded that though they were justified in terminating the services but if the Court finds that without an inquiry services could not be terminated then they be given opportunity to lead evidence in Court to justify the order of termination.