LAWS(RAJ)-2006-8-86

RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. LABOUR COURT BHARATPUR

Decided On August 22, 2006
RAJENDRA SINGH Appellant
V/S
LABOUR COURT BHARATPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 25/8/1993 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur whereby the reference has been answered in negative.

(2.) THE State Government referred the following dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication, which is as follows:-

(3.) THE submission of counsel for the petitioner is that services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground of habitual absentee, which is a misconduct and further casts stigma, therefore, the regular domestic enquiry was necessary, but without giving any charge sheet, taking reply to charge sheet, without appointing any enquiry officer and further without allowing him to produce evidence in defence etc. , the said order of termination has been passed. THE further submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the Order of 1974 has not been framed while exercising any statutory power nor the same has been passed in accordance with the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946, therefore, the same is nothing, but administrative in nature. THE procedure prescribed for imposing penalty under Rule 28 without conducting enquiry is violative of basic principle of imposing of the punishment after disciplinary action which could have only been in accordance with the principle of natural justice as well as principle of reasonable, just and fair procedure. He further submits that in case of punishment on the ground of misconduct, which casts stigma, the principle of natural justice was required to be followed by giving the reasonable opportunity to defend in a domestic enquiry. He also submits that principle of natural justice are inbuilt in Article 14 of the Constitution of India which prohibits the respondents from acting in a arbitrary manner. THE alternate submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that in case the present case is not taken as a case of misconduct then the same is the case of retrenchment and removal is violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.