The instant petition is directed against the award dated 1.6.2019 published on 6.8.2019 whereby the reference made to the Labour Court under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been rejected.
The petitioner was working as peon with respondent No.2 at Mathura. It seems that by order dated 20.8.2003, he was transferred to Delhi office. However, the petitioner did not join. Consequently, he was placed under suspension on 28.8.2003 and was also served with a charge sheet to which the petitioner claims to have replied on 4.9.2003. The case of the petitioner is that the enquiry officer without concluding the enquiry directed the petitioner by letter dated 19.2.2004 to join the transferred place by 28.2.2004. The petitioner filed an application on 20.2.2004 requesting for revocation of the suspension order and for permitting him to join at Mathura. It was also his case that the employer without any written order dismissed him from service on 20.2.2004. The reference to the Labour Court was whether dispensation of service on 20.2.2004 was valid and legal and to what relief the petitioner was entitled to.
According to respondent No.2, the petitioner could be transferred to any of its branches. Accordingly, he was transferred to Delhi office by order dated 20.8.2003. But the petitioner did not comply with the said order. Consequently, he was served with a charge sheet on 28.8.2003. The case of the petitioner was that transfer order was not served upon him. The enquiry was concluded and by order dated 14.2.2004 he was given warning and also time till 28.2.2004 to join the Delhi office. The petitioner did not join at Delhi office, but raised industrial dispute on totally false plea that he was dismissed from service on 20.2.2004.
The petitioner examined himself as PW-1. On behalf of respondent No.2, Vaibhavsheel Bharti, Assistant Labour Officer was examined as EW-1. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record has returned a specific finding that it was within the power of the employer to serve charge sheet upon the petitioner or to place him under suspension. The employer is also competent to inflict punishment after holding domestic enquiry. A specific finding has been returned that the petitioner had failed to establish that his service was dispensed with. The petitioner himself stopped reporting for duty as according to him, the order transferring him to Delhi was illegal. The tribunal has further held that it is not competent to examine the validity of the transfer order. The reference has been rejected holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to assail the finding recorded by the tribunal to the effect that the petitioner himself stopped coming to the institution and that his service was never dispensed with.
In such view of the matter, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by Labour Court, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 26.11.2019 skv