HARBHAJ RAM Vs. LABOUR COURT JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 11. 7. 2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 23. 9. 1995 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 2 Managing Director, Paschami Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Jodhpur by which the services of the petitioner were terminated and the judgment and award dated 23. 11. 2000 (Annex. 11) passed by the respondent No. 1 Labour Court, Jodhpur by which the order Annex. 3 dated 23. 9. 1995 terminating the services of the petitioner was found valid and proper, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- THE petitioner was working as Helper Gr. I at Milk Chilling Centre, Phalodi which is under the Paschami Rajasthan Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Sangh" ). THE further case of the petitioner is that General Panchayat Raj Elections were held in the State of Rajasthan in the month of February, 1995 and he wanted to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Nokhda. THE further case of the petitioner is that the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the Uttari Rajasthan Milk Producers Cooperative Union Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations of 1992") and as per Regulation 13 of the Regulations of 1992, an employee of Sangh was not allowed to take part in election and Regulation 50 of the Regulations of 1992 provides that the Board may exempt any employee from the application of any particular regulation and therefore, he applied to the respondent No. 2 Managing Director of Sangh for seeking permission to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Nokhda through application Annex. 1 dated 17. 1. 1995. THE further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 Managing Director of Sangh granted permission to the petitioner through order Annex. 2 dated 28. 1. 1995 to contest the Panchayat Raj Election. THE further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, he contested the election and he was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nokhda and this fact was informed by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 Managing Director of Sangh. THE further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, the respondent No. 2 Managing Director of Sangh issued a show cause notice dated 27. 3. 1995 (Annex. R/1) to the petitioner asking him to submit explanation why his services be not terminated because as per the Regulations of 1992, he was prohibited from contesting the election. A reply to the said show cause notice Annex. R/1 was filed by the petitioner on 11. 4. 1995 (Annex. R/2 ). THEreafter, another show cause notice dated 22. 7. 1995 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted the reply to the said show cause notice on 1. 8. 1995. THEreafter, the respondent No. 2 Managing Director of Sangh passed the impugned order Annex. 3 dated 23. 9. 1995 by which the services of the petitioner were terminated mentioning therein that as per Regulation 13 of the Regulations of 1992, the petitioner could not contest the election and the provisional permission which was given to the petitioner through order Annex. 2 should be treated as void. THEreafter, the Labour Department of the Government of Rajasthan through Notification dated 5. 3. 1997 (Annex. 4) made the reference to the respondent No. 1 Labour Court, Jodhpur to the effect whether the termination of services of the petitioner through order Annex. 3 dated 23. 9. 1995 was valid and proper or not and on that reference, a case being No. 23/97 was registered by the respondent No. 1 Labour Court, Jodhpur and notices were issued to both the parties. THEreafter, the petitioner submitted his claim before the respondent No. 1 Labour Court, Jodhpur through statement of claim Annex. 5 and a reply to the claim of the petitioner was filed by the respondent No. 2 through Annex. 6. After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on record, respondent No. 1 the Labour Court, Jodhpur through judgment and award dated 23. 11. 2000 (Annex. 11) came to the conclusion that the termination of services of the petitioner through order Annex. 3 dated 23. 9. 1995 was valid and proper holding inter-alia that as per the Regulation 13 of the Regulations of 1992, an employee of the Sangh was debarred from taking part in any election and since the petitioner took part in the election, therefore, in such circumstances, the termination of his services through order Annex. 3 was proper and valid. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. In this writ petition, the order Annex. 3 dated 23. 9. 1995 passed by the respondent No. 2 Managing Director of Sangh by which the services of the petitioner were terminated and the judgment and award dated 23. 11. 2000 (Annex. 11) passed by the respondent No. 1 Labour Court, Jodhpur by which termination of services of the petitioner through order Annex. 3 was found proper and valid, have been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds and the main ground is that since the penalty of removal from service is a major penalty and since it was imposed upon the petitioner without holding an enquiry, therefore, the termination order Annex. 3 is bad in law and similarly, the findings of the learned Labour Court are wholly perverse and erroneous one and should be set aside as without holding enquiry, the services of the petitioner could not be terminated. In this respect, the petitioner has placed reliance on Regulation 39 of the Regulations of 1992 which provides disciplinary procedure and also on Regulation 50 where there is a provision for relaxation under special circumstances. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 2 Managing Director of Sangh and the case of the respondent No. 2 Managing Director of Sangh is that as per Regulation 13 of the Regulations of 1992, the termination order Annex. 3 was rightly passed against the petitioner and in such circumstances, there was no need to hold enquiry as envisaged in Regulation 39 of the Regulations of 1992. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

(3.) FOR convenience, Regulation 13 of the Regulations of 1992 is quoted here:- " 13. Prohibition against participation in election: (1) An employee shall not take part in an election to any legislature or to any local authority. (2) Nothing contained in sub-regulation (1) shall be deemed to affect the right of any employee to vote at an election and where he does so, he shall give no indication of the manner in which he proposes to vote or has voted. (3) Every employee shall strictly refrain from being a worker or officer bearer of any political party. (4) If any question arises whether any conduct falls within the scope of this regulation, the decision of the Competent Authority shall be final. "