JUDGMENT Bharati Sapru, J.
1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and award dated 15.3.1989 passed by the Labour Court in adjudication case No. 42 of 1987.
2. I have heard Sri Rakesh Pandey learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Kritika Singh learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent company and have perused the record.
3. Petitioner was terminated by the order dated 1.3.1983 which clearly reflects that this was not a plain and simple letter of discharge. The reason for terminating the petitioner workman was on account of fact that he was facing criminal charges for having committed offences under Section 395/397 I.P.C. from 13.5.1980 to 22.2.1983.
4. It is for this reason, the respondent company stated that it could not keep the petitioner workman in employment as the offences committed by him involve moral turpitude. The respondent company also pleaded that it has lost confidence and terminated the services of the petitioner workman under the Standing Order 20 for clerks.
5. A bare perusal of the letter of termination dated 1.3.1983 clearly reflects that the letter is stigmatic in nature and in fact punishment of termination has been imposed upon the petitioner workman on account of this alleged offences.
6. In view of the catena of decisions by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court, there is no doubt that any such letter which is stigmatic and imposes punishment on stigmatic charges must give to the person so charged, an opportunity of hearing by way of an enquiry.
7. In the present case, the admitted position is that neither any enquiry was conducted before the petitioner was discharged from service nor he was afforded any opportunity to reply the letter of termination.
8. Labour Court in its judgment and award dated 15.3.1989 has recorded finding to the effect that the letter of termination dated 1.3.1983 is not in the nature of punishment but is a discharge simplicitor. This finding of the Labour court is wholly perverse and erroneous because from a plain reading of the letter dated 1.3.1983, it is abundantly clear that the letter is stigmatic.
9. On the other hand the Labour Court has acted in excess of jurisdiction by travelling beyond the terms of reference. It is well-settled that the Labour Court is a Court of reference jurisdiction and therefore it must confine to the reference before it and not to travel beyond it. In the instant case, the Labour Court has not addressed its properly to the reference which was before it and in fact came to its own conclusion and finding on the basis of conviction made in other proceedings. This is also perverse. See Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat v. The Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. 1979 (38) FLR 38 and Mukund Ltd. v. Mukund Staff and Officers as reported in 2004 (101) FLR 219.
10. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award of the Labour Court being vitiated, is set aside. The money, if any, paid to the petitioner workman, pursuant to the impugned judgment and award, shall not be recovered from him. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court to reconsider and decide afresh preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner before the respondent No. 3, in view of the observations made above.
11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed as above.