JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Nagar Nigam, Aligarh challenges the award of the Labour Court dated 23rd August, 1997 passed in Adjudication Case No. 102 of 1987. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government for adjudication:
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed eksgu 'kekZ iq= Jh cky eqdqUn] vkDVªk; eqgfjZj dh lsok;sa fnukad 10-7-84 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr [email protected] oS/kkfud gS A ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k [email protected]'ke ¼fjyhQ½ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr\**
2. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the Labour Court has framed an additional issue as to whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the employer was legal and justified? If any, its effects?
3. The Labour Court after giving opportunity to both the parties, namely, the petitioner-employer and the concerned workman had arrived at the conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the employer was not fair and proper and was contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court vide its order dated 29th February, 1996 after holding the aforesaid have directed that in case the employer wants they can prove the charges against the concerned workman before the Court by producing such evidence as they would like. Thereafter, the Labour Court proceeded in the matter. Before the Labour Court, an objection was also made by the employer by raising an issue that the employer is not covered by the definition of 'industry'. Therefore, the reference is bad in law. The Labour Court has decided this point also against the employer. After the preliminary issue was decided by the Labour Court, the parties have adduced evidence and after hearing the parties and going through the pleadings and evidence on record, the Labour Court have arrived at the finding that the services of the concerned workman were terminated illegally with effect from 10th July, 1984 without holding fair and proper domestic enquiry. The Labour Court has also recorded finding that the employer have failed to prove the charges levelled against the concerned workman. In these circumstances, the Labour Court has held that the termination of the services of the concerned workman by the employer with effect from 10th July, 1984 is illegal and unjustified and the concerned workman is entitled for reinstatement. Therefore, the Labour Court gave award that the concerned workman is entitled for reinstatement with effect from 10th July, 1984 with full back wages and continuity of service. It is these findings which have been challenged by the petitioner including the order on the preliminary issue. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Labour Court either suffer from manifest error of law or is perverse.
4. It is admitted that the employer, inspite of time being granted by the Labour Court, have failed to establish the charges before the Labour Court by adducing any evidence.
5. In these circumstances, this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution" of India declines to interfere with the award of the Labour Court dated 23rd August, 1987 and the order dated 29th February, 1996.
6. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. There is no order as to costs.