Tej Pal Singh vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by Tej Pal Singh, an Assistant of Pharmacist, Super Bazar, Chandigarh assailing the award of the Labour Court dated February 14, 1994. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court had declined the reference.

The sum and substance of the controversy revolves around the following facts:-

The petitioner, who is a workman, was served with a demand notice on August 30, 1990 by the respondent Organisation; he was alleged to be absent from duty without leave; the workman applied that his mother was unwell and, therefore, he was unable to attend the duty; he had submitted certain applications for leave; after the inquiry, he was removed from service. When the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, as already mentioned above, the reference of the petitioner had been declined and it was held that services of the petitioner have not been illegally terminated.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the award of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court and amongst others, it has been asserted that the Presiding Officer, Labour Court did not consider and examine the evidence recorded by the Inquiry Officer, and did not care to record its own findings.

In this regard, the contention of the petitioner gets support from the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, . In paragraph 7, this Court held:-

"However, we find substantial merit in the petitioner''s contention that the Labour Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner, in our opinion, is right in his submission that the Labour Court was duty bound to examine on merits the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer and rcvord its own findings on the charge levelled against him and also to consider whether the punishment awarded by the employer was just or not, having regard to the total length of service, the nature of allegations etc."

The position herein is identical. Inadvertently, it appears that the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court did not consider the evidence recorded by the Inquiry Officer and recorded its own findings on the charge that has been levelled. In consequence thereto, the writ petition is allowed and the award passed by the Labour Court is quashed and the case is remanded to the Labour Court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

The parties are directed to appear before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh on November 10, 1998.

In face of the above, the writ petition is disposed of.