AMAR SINGH Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above four writ petitions involve the same and similar question of facts, and are therefore being decided by one order. For convenience the facts as narrated, are being taken from S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2147/1995 Ram Avatar v. Judge, Labour Court,. Bharatpur and Ors. The writ petitioners in the above writ petitions were employees of M/s Eicher Tractors Ltd. , Alwar. All the writ petitions are directed against the order of approval dated March 18, 1995 granted Amar Singh and Ors. vs. Labour Court (02. 01. 1997 -RAJHC) Page 2 of 5 gh and Ors. vs. Labour Court (02. 01. 1997 -RAJHC) Page 2 of 5 by the Labour Court while exercising the powers under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Because of certain reasons and some agitations in the industry of the respondent, the respondent had all of a sudden without any notice, without any charge sheet and without holding any inquiry had dismissed the aforesaid employees from their service vide order dated June 29, 1988 attached as Annexure 1 with the written statement. In the order An- nexure R/1 allegations were levelled against the employees and the order of dismissal did contain the stigma as well. However, a wisdom had prevailed on the respondent Management after a short period of the dismissal orders passed against the employees and the order Annexure R/1 was withdrawn by a subsequent order dated August 22, 1988. (Annexure R/2) and the concerned employees i. e the petitioners were taken bapk on the rolls of the company. It was mentioned in the order Annexure R/2 that they shall not be entitled to any wages for the period June 29, 1988 to August 21, 1988.

(2.) IT seems that on being advised, still another order was passed in the month of December 1989 to treat the period in between the order of dismissal and the order of withdrawal of the dismissal as a period spent on duty and payment was also made to the employees with the result that the order of dismissal dated June 28/29, 1988 was withdrawn with consequential benefits as well.

(3.) AS rightly advised and to legalise the action contemplated on previous occasion vide their dismissal order of June 1988, the management had thought fit to issue a charge sheet to the workers and to hold enquiry. It is alleged that some charge sheet was published in the Newspapers and ultimately after holding an ex parte inquiry all the employees were again dismissed on December 22, 1989. Admittedly the order of dismissal was passed on some exparte inquiry and on the report given by the Inquiry Officer Shri -Narendra Kumar Gupta on January 15, 1989. In the meantime, the employees had raised an industrial dispute against the order of dismissal dated June 28, 1988 (Annexure R/1) and the employees had also challenged the order of withdrawal of the dismissal order dated August 22, 1988. Both these matters were referred to the appropriate Labour Court vide the reference order dated March 4, 1990, which is still pending before the Labour Court, Bharatpur.