LASSA KAUL BHAN Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved of an order passed by the first respondent, the Labour Court, upholding the action of the second respondent, Messrs Karam Chand Thaper and others, Maulana Azad Road, Srinagar, in dismissing the petitioner from its service. The facts leading up to the filing of this petition, which have been exhaustively stated in the impugned order, may, however, be stated in brief as hereunder:

(2.) THE petitioner, an employee of the second respondent, hereinafter to be referred to as the management, was, on 13. 12. 1972, asked by one Pran Nath Mahaldar, an officer of the Management to collect some money from one of its customers. He refused to obey the order and instead created a row by thumping the table and by using unparliamentary language against the said Pran Nath. He was, for this act of insubordination, placed by Pran Nath under suspension on 18. 12. 1972 with the previous approval of the Regional Manager, who was further directed by the latter to hold a domestic enquiry into the incident. The domestic enquiry was accordingly held, but the petitioner did not appear before Pran Nath, nor did he participate in the enquiry held by him, notwithstanding the fact that he was called upon to do so, not only by addressing letters to him, but also by sending a messenger to him. An exparte report was, on the conclusion of the enquiry, made by Pran Nath to the Regional Manager, holding the incident provide, who on accepting the same, passed an order on 26. 2. 1973, dismissing the petitioner from service of the Management. The petitioner, then approached the Labour Commissioner, on whose intervention, the Management agreed to reopen the whole matter, and appointed one N. N. Razdan as another Enquiry Officer to hold a fresh enquiry into the incident. The petitioner failed to appear and participate in this enquiry as well though several attempts were made by the new Enquiry officer also to persuade him to appear and participate in the enquiry, which he was required to hold. The result, in consequence, remained the same, and his exparte report also went against the petitioner whose order of dismissal was again upheld by the Regional Manager.

(3.) THE petitioner then approached the Conciliation Officer, who again conducted an independent enquiry into the matter, and ultimately came to the conclusion that the petitioners service had been rightly terminated The conciliation talks having been thus rendered preposterous, the Government made a reference of following two disputes to the first respondent: "i Legality or otherwise of the action of the said Management in terminating the services of the said employee. ii award appropriate relief to the said employee in case illegality of the said action, is established."