CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Municipal Board vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 6 February 1997 · Citation: (1997) 02 AHC CK 0036

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Katju, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.W.P. No. 12324 of 1981
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 362 words

M. Katju, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of the Labour Court, Meerut dated 23.6.1981.

2.

Heard Sri A. D. Prabhakar for the Petitioner and Sri K. P. Agarwal for the Respondent workman.

3.

It appears that the Respondent workman was employed by the Petitioner, Municipal Board, Meerut. There was an allegation that the worker Tej Singh had used filthy language to the Octroi Superintendent and misbehaved with him. Hence he was dismissed from service. He filed an appeal which was also dismissed. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute which was decided in his favour by the impugned award. Hence this petition.

4.

Sri A. D. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, firstly, contended that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction in the matter as according to him the U.P. Public Service Tribunal has the Jurisdiction. This contention is incorrect in view of Section 1(4)(e) of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal Act which excludes workmen under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act from the purview of the relevant provisions of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal Act. Sri Prabhakar then contended that the Octroi Department of the Municipality is not an industry. This argument is not correct in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply'' case AIR 1987 SC 1548.

5.

Sri Prabhakar then contended that the finding that no enquiry was held against the Respondent worker is not correct. However, in the order dated 5.1.1981 which is Annexure-19 to the writ petition, it has been held by the Labour Court that no one appeared on behalf of the employer to prove the alleged enquiry proceedings. In my opinion, unless somebody appears in the witness box before the Labour Court to prove the enquiry proceeding, it cannot be said that any enquiry was held against the concerned worker. Since there were allegations of misconduct against the worker, some enquiry should have been made against him so that he could have defended himself. It can, therefore, be said that an enquiry was held.

6.

Hence there is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. The interim order stands vacated.