MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. LABOUR COURT NO.2

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming following reliefs:-

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner became a regular employee of the respondent in August, 1982. The petitioner became a permanent employee on 01.04.1984 and was promoted as Catering Assistant on 1.7.1987. The petitioner is aggrieved of a charge-sheet dated 11.9.1989. The charge-sheet is reproduced as follows:-

(3.) The Counsel for the petitioner makes a limited submission that the total charge framed is absence of 2 days in one time, 4 days in another, one day, two days in another, and lastly 6 days. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the enquiry was believed to be correct, then also the learned labour Court and learned authority ought to have appreciated that the petitioner order was bit too harsh upon the present petitioner. The Counsel for the petitioner Shri M.C.Taylor further submits that the past conduct which has been taken into consideration, cannot be taken into consideration as the same is not part of the charges framed and any kind of previous conduct cannot become a cause for specific charges mentioned in the charge-sheet dated 11.09.1989. Thus, the arguments of petitioner's Counsel were restricted to disproportionate punishment.