Maharshi Dayanand University vs Vijay Kumar

S.S. Nijjar, J.—This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated 14.2.2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court) whereby respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the workman) has been ordered to be reinstated on previous post of Lab. Attendant in the petitioner-University with continuity of service and with 60% backwages. The petitioner-Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the Management) is a statutory body constituted under the Maharshi Dayanand University Act, 1975 (Hary-ana Act 25 of 1975). The University is competent to sue and be sued through its Registrar. Hence, the writ petition is filed by the competent authority.

According to the workman, he was appointed as a Lab. Attendant after appearing in an interview which was conducted by the Management on 28.8.1991. He was selected on the basis of his academic qualification and experience as required for the post of Lab. Attendant. The work and conduct of the workman remained satisfactory during his service. He was regularised in service w.e.f. 31.8.1991. The workman was served with charge-sheet on the allegation that he got the employed on the basis of fake certificate. The enquiry officer was appointed. According to the workman, the enquiry was not conducted fairly and properly. It was further the case of the workman that hts services have been illegally terminated on the basis of an illegal enquiry report. It is further stated that the punishment awarded to the workman is disproportionate to the misconduct. Upon termination, the workman served a demand notice on the management. Consequently, the matter was referred to the Labour Court by the Gover-nor of Haryana. Before the Labour Court, the Management filed written statement. It was pleaded that the workman has no cause of action. It was further admitted that the workman was appointed as Lab. Attendant on 28.8.1991. His services were regularised w.e.f. 31.8.1991 by order dated 10.3.1992. It was further pleaded that the workman was successful in obtaining appointment letter on the basis of a fake experience certificate. Hehad obtained the fake experience certificate regarding the period when he was a student. The experience certificate from the month of July, 1988 upto the month of July, 1991 as Lab. Attendant was procured by the workman with ulterior motive and for wrongful gains just to seek employment with the Management. It was further pleaded that the misconduct of the workman had been established during the departmental enquiry. The workman, in reply to the charge-sheet, himself admitted that he joined the Haryana Medical College of E.H.A. and Technology, Bhiwani just to gain experience and learning. The matter had been referred to the Labour Court in the following terms :-

"Whether the termination of services of Vijay Kumar is justified and in order If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"

On the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following three issues :-

As per terms of reference ?

Whether the Management has conducted fair and proper enquiry ?

Relief ?

Issue No. 2 was treated as a preliminary issue. Both the parties were given an opportunity to lead evidence. After examining the entire matter, by order dated 3.2.1997, the Labour Court decided issue No. 2 against the Management. Consequently, both the parties were given an opportunity to adduce oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective assertions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the workman, being merely a student, could not have been given a certificate of experience of having worked as a Lab. Attendant. Therefore, he has succeeded in his design to obtain the job of the Laboratory Attendant with the Management by practising a fraud. He has submitted that a workman who indulges in such kind of fraudulent act cannot be permitted to remain in the employment of the Management-University. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Labour Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the punishment awarded to the workman is disproportionate to the misconduct.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. I have perused the award.

It becomes evident that the Labour Court has marshalled all the evidences which was led by the parties before it. After noticing the submission made by the authorised representative of the Management, it has been held that there is no illegality in the certificate issued to the workman. In fact, a clarification had been sought by the Management from the Principal of the Haryana Medical College of E.H.A. and Technology, Bhiwani by its letter dated 25.7.1992, The Principal had explained that during the period from Month of July, 1988 upto month of July, 1991, the workman had worked as a Laboratory Attendant in the said Institute. It is further clarified that workman used to work in the Laboratory from 2.30 P.M. till the time of closure of the institution. It is also clarified that during the same period, the workman was indeed a student of the College also. He also used to attend 10+2 classes. During the year 1989, he used to attend classes in the College from 9 a.m. to 2p.m. He also remained a student in (he year 1989-90. The certificate issued by the institution shows that the workman worked from 11 a.m. afterthe month of July 1990. It was only prior to it he used to work in the Laboratory from 2.30 p.m. till the closure time of the laboratory. The Management did not lead any evidence in rebuttal of the evidence which was led by the workman.

In view of the above, it would not possible to hold that the aforesaid findings given by the Labour Court are based on no evidence. It is settled proposition of law that this Court will not re-appreciate the evidence which has been led before the Labour Court in the same manner that could be done by a court of appeal. This Court would be justified in interfering with the finding of facts recorded by the Labour Court only if the award suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. The award would suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record. Only if the findings are either based on no evidence or are perverse. The Labour Court has found thatthe enquiry conducted by the Management was not fair and proper. The Management has been given full opportunity to justify its action. The Management has failed to justify its action before the Labour Court. However, whilst granting relief to the workman, he has been granted only 60% back-wages. This finding of the Labour Court has not been challenged by the workman. Therefore, it would not be possible to express any opinion on the propriety of the same.

In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs.

Petition dismissed.