JWELLER ASSOCIATION Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER APPOINTED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction for quashing the order of respondent No. 1, dated 17th November, 1987, where by he reinstated respondent No. 2 and quashed the order of dismissal, dated 11th October, 1973 of respondent No. 2 Devi Singh from the services of Jwellers Association, Jaipur.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is association and was established for the welfare of the members dealing in genuine jewellery to guide them for import and export business of jewellery. The petitioner association is registered under the Rajasthan Non -trading Companies Act. Respondent No. 2 Devi Singh was employed in the petitioner association as Class IV employee on 27th June, 1975. A charge -sheet was given to him on 23rd July, 1982. After receiving the charge -sheet, Devi Singh respondent No. 2, filed his reply. As the reply was found to be not satisfactory, the management of the petitioner association decided to hold a domestic enquiry. The enquiry was commenced and it was concluded on 15th September, 1983. As per the report of the Enquiry Officer, Charge No. 5 was held to be not proved and the remaining charges were held to be proved and respondent No. 2 was found guilty. The management of the Association dismissed the services of respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 11th October, 1983. Petitioner's case is that, though it was not obliged to give one month's wages still looking to the provisions of Section 29A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (for short the Act), the Association paid one month's notice pay to respondent No. 2. The services of the employee, respondent No. 2, were dispensed with from the afternoon of October, 1983. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 28A of the Act. The Association contested the case before respondent No. 1. On 17 September. 1984, an issue was framed to enquire as to whether the enquiry conducted by the petitioner association is fair and proper. Both the parties were allowed to lead evidence on this issue. On this issue, the Authority, respondent No. 1, gave its finding that the enquiry was not fair, though the Authority held the order of dismissal to be bad in law and. consequently vide its order dated 17th November, 1987, quashed the order of dismissal of respondent No. 2 and directed the Association to reinstate him.

(3.) SHRI Ashok Parihar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, contested the case without filing any reply, at the admission stage. The learned Counsel for the parties agreed that the case may be decided at the admission on stage.