JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners-employer challenging the award of the Labour Court, Varanasi dated 29th August, 1997 passed in Adjudication Case No. 179 of 1989.
2. The following dispute was referred to for adjudication to the Labour Court :
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed jktsUnz izlkn frokjh] iq= cyHknz frokjh] 'kk[kk izcU/kd dh lsok;sa fnukaad 21-8-87 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfprk [email protected] oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha] rks Jfed D;k vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\**
3. After receipt of reference Labour Court issued notices to the parties. The parties have exchanged their pleadings and adduced evidence before Labour Court. The case set up by the workman-respondent No. 2 is that he was appointed with the employer on 7th January, 1974 as Branch Manager and since then he was regularly working till 28th August, 1986 when he was suspended on the false allegations regarding embezzlement. No charge-sheet has been served on him; no Enquiry Officer was appointed; no enquiry was conducted to the knowledge of the workman concerned. The workman received a notice to appear on 30th July, 1987 for enquiry. The workman presented himself but no enquiry was conducted nor any opportunity was given by the so-called Enquiry Officer. It appears that some sort of enquiry report is obtained behind the back of the workman concerned and the workman concerned has not been supplied even the copies of the documents and records. It is on the basis of the ex-parte enquiry report, the services of the workman concerned has been terminated on 21st August, 1987. The workman raised the dispute which is referred to Labour Court which has answered the reference in favour of the workman, thus, this writ petition by employer.
4. The employer have also filed their written statement and stated that the workman has been afforded full opportunity and after enquiry services of workman has been terminated. The case set up by the employer is that the regular enquiry was conducted against the workman concerned and he was given full opportunity. It is only when the charges were proved in the enquiry, his services were terminated. The employer have further submitted that in case domestic enquiry conducted by the employer was found not to be in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the employer may be afforded an opportunity to prove the charges against the workman concerned before the Labour Court.
5. The Labour Court directed the parties to produce their relevant documentary evidence and on 13th March, 1996, which was the date fixed, the employers' representative made a statement that if domestic enquiry was not found fair and proper, the employer may be given an opportunity to prove the charges before the Labour Court. Thereafter, the employer have produced one Bhavan Prakash Lal Srivastava, Accountant as witness to prove the documents and the charge against the workman concerned. The statement of aforesaid Bhavan Prakash Lal Srivastava was completed on 24th April, 1997 and thereafter 26th August, 1997 was fixed for the statement of the workman concerned and his statement was recorded on oath but the employers' representative Sri S.K. Tripathi had informed the Labour Court that he will not participate in the enquiry as no employee of the employer has contacted him with records.
6. In this view of the matter, the statement of the workman concerned remained uncontroverted as no body was prepared to cross-examine the workman concerned. The Labour Court, therefore, decided to proceed the case on the basis of the material available on record.
7. The Labour Court after considering the material on record has arrived at the conclusion that in fact no enquiry what to domestic enquiry was conducted and the services of the workman concerned were terminated without complying with provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court, therefore, recorded a finding that neither any opportunity was given, nor the employer inspite of opportunity being given by Labour Court after coming to conclusion that no enquiry was conducted have tried to prove the charges against the workman concerned before Labour Court. The Labour Court, therefore, directed the reinstatement of the workman concerned with continuity of service and full back wages. It is this award which is under challenged by means of the present writ petition, as stated above.
8. The law is well established that the finding arrived at by the Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties should not be lightly interfered unless the same are demonstrated to be perverse or suffering from any manifest error of law. Nothing sort has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the finding recorded by Labour Court is contrary to law.
9. In this view of the matter, the finding record by the Labour Court to the effect that no enquiry has been conducted by the employer in the matter of charges against the workman concerned and that the workman has not been afforded any opportunity, whatsoever, remains unassailable. No other point has been argued.
10. In view of what has been said above, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. There will be no order as to costs.