DEOKI NANDAN Vs. JUDGE, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the impugned award dtd. 16/3/1999 passed by Labour Court, Kota, in Case no. 21/1998 by which oral termination order dtd. 29/10/1984 of the petitioner has been held to be valid.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor on 30/5/1984 and his services were terminated orally on 29/10/1984. Counsel submits that a vague remark was issued against the petitioner that nine passengers were found without ticket. Counsel submits that neither any charge-sheet was given nor any enquiry was held against the petitioner, hence his termination order is punitive. Counsel submits that there was violation of the provisions of Sec. 25F, G, H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "Act of 1947"). Counsel submits that while relying on para nos. 34 and 35 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd (1999) 2 SCC 21 that termination order of the petitioner has been found to be valid by the Labour Court. Counsel submits that during pendency of the matter before the Labour Court, affidavits were submitted by both sides but no findings were recorded by the Labour Court hence, interference of this court is warranted and appropriate direction be issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in service.

(3.) Per contra, the counsel for respondents opposed the arguments raised by the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner hardly worked with the employer for eighty-one days and had not completed one year of service and during inspection of the bus on the route of Aklera-Jhalawar, nine passengers were found without ticket though the petitioner had charged the fare of tickets from seven passengers. Counsel submits that termination of the petitioner on 29/10/1984 was simplicitor and the same was not passed with any remark, hence the same cannot be said to be punitive.