DINESH KHARE Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 14th Dec. 1971, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur thereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), whereby the Tribunal gave its approval to the action of the management of the " Daily Rashtradoot " ( hereinafter referred to as "the management'') dismissing the petitioner from service.

(2.) "rashtradoot", is a daily Hindi news-paper published from Jaipur. The petitioner, Dinesh Khare, joined 'rashtradoot' in September, 1951, and he was appointed as Editor of the said newspaper in May, 1952. When he was employed as editor of the "rashtradoot" the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 27th January, 1967 containing charges of misconduct and he was required to submit his explanation to the said charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated Feb. 2, 1967, to the aforesaid charges. But the management was not satisfied with the same and the services of the petitioner were terminated by order dated Feb. 18, 1967. The aforesaid termination of the services of the petitioner gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication by the State Government to the Labour Court, Rajasthan, Jaipur hereinfter referred to as "the Labour Court";. The Labour Court, by its award dated October 7, 1968. declared that the petitioner was a working journalist governed by the provisions of the Working Journalists (Condition of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the "working Journalists Act") and that the termination of the service of the petitioner was in reality a dismissal for misconduct and, since no domestic enquiry was held into the charges levelled against the petitioner, the termination of the services of the petitioner was wrongful. The Labour Court, therefore, ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages. The appeal filed by the management against the said award of the Labour Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court on September 22, 1969.

(3.) THEREAFTER, the management served a charge-sheet dated October 18, 1969 containing fourteen charges, on the petitioner. The aforesaid charge-sheet dated 18th October, 1969 contained the charges which were the subject-matter of the earlier charge-sheet dated January 27, 1967, but it also contained certain additional charges. In his reply dated November 22, 1969, the petitioner denied the charges levelled against him in the charge-sheet dated October 18, 1969, Shri D. P. Sharma was appointed as the enquiry officer, by the management, to hold an enquiry into the said charges. The enquiry officer, after holding the enquiry into charges contained in the charge - sheet dated October 18, 1969 submitted his report dated September 29, 1970 wherein, he found that the charges Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 had been proved against the petitioner. The said enquiry report was considered by respondent No. 5, Shri Hazari Lal Sharma, the proprietor of the 'rashtradoot' and he agreed with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in respect of charges Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8, but he held that charge No. 3 related to an incident of the year 1964 and that no action was called for against the petitioner in respect of the said charge. Respondent No. 5 was, however, of the view that action should be taken against the petitioner with regard to charges Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 and he, therefore, imposed the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner for charges Nos. 1, 2 and 4 collectively and charges Nos. 5 and 8 separately, and by his order dated November 23, 1970, he ordered that the petitioner be removed from service with effect from November 30, 1970. In the order aforesaid, it was stated that the Dinesh Khare vs. Industrial Tribunal and Ors. (01. 12. 1981 -RAJHC) Page 3 of 33 (01. 12. 1981 -RAJHC) Page 3 of 33 petitioner had been offered one month's notice pay as required under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act and that he should collect the same from the office between 11-00 A. M. and 4-00 P. M. on any day after November 27, 1970. By the order aforesaid, the petitioner was also informed that an application under Section 33 (2) (b)of the Act was being moved before the Tribunal for approval of the order of dismissal.