Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2364 of 1998 Petitioner :- Smt. Madhu Singh Respondent :- Labour Court And Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Km. Suman Sirohi, Vijay Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mayank Agarwal
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Devesh Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vijay Gautam, learned cousnel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. The writ petition is directed against award dated 25.07.1996 passed by Presiding Officer, Lower Court, Agra in Declaration Case No. 97 of 1991 against workman-petitioner.
3. Petitioner, an employee of respondent-2, M/s Travel Corporation of India and was working as Telephone Operator, who was terminated on 16.04.1990. An industrial dispute was raised and Deputy Labour Commissioner, Agra exercising of his delegated powers under Section 4 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1947'), referred the matter in dispute for adjudication to Labour Court, Agra, which reads as under:
ÞD;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius deZpkjh Jherh e/kq flag iRuh Jh yky flag VsyhQksu vkijsVj dh lsok,a fnukad 16-4-90 vijkg~u ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha rks deZpkjh fdl ykHk@mi'ke ikus dh vf/kdkjh gS vkSj fdl fooj.k lfgr\Þ “Whether termination of Smt. Madhu Singh wife of Shri Lal Singh, Telephone Operator from services by employers with effect from the evening of 16.04.1990 is legal and valid? If Not, for which benefit / alleviation employee is entitled, and with which description?
(English translation by the Court)
4. Before Labour Court, parties pleaded that a charge sheet dated 02.09.1989 was served upon petitioner and a supplementary charge sheet was given on 11.09.1989 and petitioner was suspended. One, Sri Anil Kumar Agarwal was appointed an enquiry officer and he submitted enquiry report, thereafter petitioner's services were terminated. Labour Court found that petitioner was given opportunity of hearing. Labour Court also cross examined witnesses itself who appeared to prove charges 2 and also all admitted documents were produced before enquiry officer. Labour Court recorded finding of fact that there was no violation of principle of natural justice giving adequate liberty to petitioner and there was sufficient reason for order of termination and was valid.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner despite repeated query could not point out any manifest error or error in order of award passed by Labour Court.
6. Having gone through the record, I do not find any manifest error or otherwise illegality so as to warrant interference.
7. Dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Ashish Pd.