OM PRAKASH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties, the issue, and the grievance, in both these writ petitions being common, the petitions are heard and taken up for disposal by this Common Order.

(2.) The petitioner was Sales Supervisor in the 2nd respondent-M/s. Nath Peters Hygiean Ltd (Company, in short). He, along with other employees, formed a Trade Union, which came to be registered as Nath Peters Hygiean Group of Companies Employees and Workers Union, and he was elected as Vice-President of the Union. On the allegation that he intimidated two employees, Mr. T. Uma Maheswar Rao and Mr. K. Laxmi Prasad, he was suspended from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation; however, a Charge Memo dtd. 16/1/1999 (alleged to have come to his notice on 7/5/1999) was issued. He furnished his explanation to the Charge Memo on 8/5/1999. Dissatisfied, the Management appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the petitioner. The enquiry was conducted from 2/6/1999 to 3/8/2001, and the Enquiry Report was furnished to the petitioner on 26/11/2001. Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice was issued asking the petitioner to submit his objections/comments, if any, to the Enquiry Report. The petitioner submitted his objections; however, the Management dismissed him from service vide Proceedings dtd. 26/12/2001. The petitioner served a Demand Notice dtd. 28/1/2002 requesting the Management to reconsider the decision of dismissal from service; however, the same was not considered.

(3.) Heard Mr. Shaik Anwar Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour, and Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel for respondent-Company. Perused the record. No counter affidavit has been filed till date.