Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUNNA KHAN versus INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (IV) AGRA & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Munna Khan v. Industrial Tribunal (Iv) Agra & Another - WRIT - C No. 1854 of 2003 [2007] RD-AH 2637 (19 February 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 23  

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1854 of 2003

MunnaKhan                            .....................................................................................................Petitioner.

                 Versus

Industrial Tribunal (IV), Agra and another............................Respondents.

                ******

Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.

The present Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner, inter-alia, praying for quashing the award dated 26th July, 2001, published on 11th April, 2002, passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (IV), Agra (hereinafter referred to as "The Industrial Tribunal") in Adjudication Case No. 114 of 1996.

It appears that a reference was made under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal to the effect as to whether the termination of services of the petitioner (workman) as Cleaner by the respondent No. 2 (employer) on 1st April, 1995, was proper and legal, and if  not, to what relief, the petitioner (workman) was entitled.

From a perusal of the impugned award, it appears that the services of the petitioner (workman) were earlier terminated on 11th January, 1983. In regard to the said  termination on 11th January, 1983, there was an Adjudication Case, being Adjudication case No. 213 of  1983, before the Labour Court, Agra. The said reference was decided  in favour of the petitioner (workman) by the award dated 24th May, 1991 passed by the Labour Court, Agra. The said award  dated 24th May, 1991 was challenged by the employer before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36382 of 1992. An interim order dated 25th September, 1992 was passed in the said  Writ Petition, inter-alia, directing  the  employer ( i.e. the petitioner in the said Writ Petition- Respondent No. 2 in the present Writ Petition) to reinstate the workman (Respondent No. 3 in the said Writ Petition-petitioner in the present Writ Petition) and to pay the workman his salary, in accordance with  rules, with effect from the date of award .

It further appears that pursuant to the said interim order dated 25th September, 1992 passed in the said Writ Petition, the petitioner (workman) was reinstated in service.

It further appears that a Charge-sheet was given to the petitioner (workman) on the ground of his absence from duty for the period from 30th April, 1993 to 23rd July, 1994.

It further appears that a domestic enquiry was held against the petitioner (workman), pursuant to the said Charge-sheet. On the basis of the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, his services were terminated on 1st February, 1995.

Thereafter, the reference, as mentioned above, was made under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the award dated 26th July, 2001, impugned in the present Writ Petition, was passed.

It has, inter-alia, been held  by the Industrial Tribunal in the said award dated 26th July, 2001, that on a preliminary issue  framed in the  Case, it had already been held by the order dated 31st January, 2001 that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper.

It has, inter-alia, been further held by the Industrial Tribunal that the subject-matter  of the present Adjudication Case  and that of the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36382 of 1992 were entirely different ; and that once the petitioner had been reinstated in service on the basis of the said interim order dated 25th September, 1992, it was open to the employer (respondent No.2) to take disciplinary proceedings, to hold domestic enquiry and to award punishment consequent to the domestic enquiry to the workman (petitioner); and that there was no condition /restriction in the said interim order dated 25th September, 1992 that in case, the workman (petitioner) committed any misconduct after reinstatement, the disciplinary proceedings against him would be taken only after prior permission of the High Court ; and that similarly, there was no condition / restriction in the said interim order dated 25th September, 1992 that prior to awarding any punishment to the workman (petitioner) , approval of the High Court would be taken by the employer (respondent No.2); and that the termination order dated 1st February, 1995 could not be said to be invalid on account of the pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petition or on account of the said interim order dated 25th September, 1992 passed therein.

It has, inter-alia, been further held by the Industrial Tribunal that it could not be said that the termination of  services of the petitioner (workman) on the ground of misconduct was in violation of the principles of natural justice.

It has, inter-alia, been further held by the Industrial Tribunal that the petitioner (workman) failed to establish that any payment of salary for the period from 30th April, 1993 to 23rd July, 1994 was made to the petitioner (workman) by the employer. It is  pointed out by the Industrial Tribunal that the said period was the  period of absence of the petitioner (workman) on the basis of which the Charge-sheet,  mentioned above, was issued to the petitioner (workman).

It has, inter-alia, been further held by the Industrial Tribunal that the petitioner (workman) had taken a contradictory stand, inasmuch as, on the one hand, he alleged that he  presented himself for work during the period mentioned in the Charge-sheet, namely, 30th April, 1993 to 23rd July, 1994, and on the other hand, the  petitioner (workman) submitted Medical Certificates for the period from 1st May, 1993 to 1st January, 1994 ; and that the said Medical Certificates were only for the period of  eight months and not for the entire period of the Charge-sheet ; and that the Private Doctor who was alleged to have issued the said Medical  Certificates, was not examined during domestic enquiry ; and that the Enquiry Officer did not commit any legal error by dis-believing the explanation of the petitioner (workman) regarding his absence.

It has, inter-alia, been further held by the Industrial Tribunal that the termination of  services of the petitioner (workman) could not be said  to be  malafide only on account of issuance of Recovery Certificate against the employer (respondent No. 2).

It has, inter-alia, been further held that the period of absence of the petitioner (workman) was from 30th April, 1993 to 23rd July, 1994, i.e. about one year and three months ; and that in the circumstances, the termination of  services of the petitioner (workman) could not be said to be disproportionate.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the domestic enquiry was held in  violation of the principles of natural justice, and the petitioner (workman) was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard.

I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner(workman), and I find myself unable  to accept the same.

Cogent reasons have been given by the Industrial Tribunal for holding the domestic  enquiry to be fair and proper. I do not find any good ground for differing from the reasons given and the conclusion drawn by the Industrial Tribunal in this regard.

It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Medical Certificates submitted by the petitioner (workman) established the illness of the petitioner (workman) during the period mentioned in the Medical Certificates, and the said Medical Certificates ought to have been accepted by the Enquiry Officer.

Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner , I find  myself  unable to accept the same.

Cogent reasons, as noted above, have been given for not believing the Medical Certificates submitted by the petitioner (workman). In my view, there   is no good ground for differing from the reasons given and the conclusion drawn by the Industrial Tribunal in this regard.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the said interim order dated 25th September, 1992 passed by the High Court in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36382 of 1992, the termination of  services of the petitioner (workman) on 1st February, 1995 was illegal.

Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the same cannot be accepted. Detailed reasons have been given by the Industrial Tribunal for rejecting the said submission made on behalf of the petitioner  (workman).

I am of the opinion that the view of the Industrial Tribunal, in this regard, is correct.

The termination of services of the petitioner (workman) on 1st February, 1995, was on account of his absence from 30th April, 1993 to 23rd July, 1994, subsequent to his reinstatement, pursuant to the said  interim order dated 25th September, 1992 passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition. In case, after his reinstatement, pursuant to the said interim order dated 25th September, 1992 passed  in the aforesaid Writ petition, the petitioner committed any misconduct, it was open to the employer (Respondent No. 2) to take appropriate action in this regard.

The termination order dated 1st February, 1995 was  a fresh termination order passed on account of misconduct committed after the reinstatement of the petitioner, pursuant to the said  interim order dated 25th September, 1992. As such, the said interim order dated 25th September, 1992 could not come in the way of passing  the impugned termination order dated 1st February, 1995 on account of misconduct committed subsequent to the reinstatement, pursuant to the said  interim order dated 25th September, 1992.

In my opinion, the Industrial Tribunal has passed the impugned award  giving valid reasons, and no illegality or perversity has been committed by the Industrial Tribunal in passing the said award. No interference is, therefore, called for with the said award.

Hence, in my view, the present Writ Petition lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt. 19-02-2007/AK/L


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.