JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The workman concerned-petitioner, aggrieved by the award of Labour Court, U.P., Meerut in Adjudication Case No. 23 of 1982 dated 2nd August 1976, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The following dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court:-
"KYA SEWAYOJAKON DWARA PRAJTISTHAN KE PHOTQ-LITHO OPERATOR SHRI R.K. DUBE. PUTRA SHRI BRINDABAN DUBE, KO DINANK 7/10/75 SE KARYA SE PRITHAK KAR DIVA JANA UCHIT TATHA/ATHWA VAIDHANIK HAI ? YADI NAHIN. TO WAH KYA LABHIKSHATIPURTI PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI TATHA KIS ANYA VIVRAN SAHIT ?"
3. On receipt of reference the Labour Court issued notices to the workman concerned and the employers who exchanged their pleadings and adduced their respective evidence. After hearing the workman concerned as well as the employers their respective case was under:-
4. The case set up by the workman was that the workman, R.K. Dube had started his service with the employers on 2nd September 1971 on a monthly pay of Rs. 450/- and his services were terminated on 7th October 1975. At the time of termination of service the workman was drawing salary of Rs. 900/- per month. As set up in the respective pleadings the workman was charged with the charge-sheet dated 9.9.1975 and after receipt of the reply of the workman a domestic enquiry was conducted. The workman has advanced argument that since he was appointed by the Branch Manager, it was Branch Manager a competent authority to take action against the petitioner but he was charge-sheeted and his services were terminated by the Manager who has no power to do so as he is the junior officer than the Branch Manager. The workman has further contended before the Labour Court that during the domestic enquiry he has not been afforded opportunity to defend himself. He has not been able to take help of co-worker and the enquiry was also not free and fair. The principles of natural justice have not been complied with in as much as the workman was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses While imposing punishment of Removal the previous conduct record of the workman has not been taken into consideration by the punishing authority. The workman, therefore prayed that he is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and continuity in service Against this plea the employers have set up their case that the workman is not covered by the definition of 'workman' and the reference of dispute, therefore is not an industrial dispute and it should not have been referred. The employers, have denied the allegation of the workman regarding domestic enquiry and also dented the fact that the workman was not afforded opportunity of defending himself and the domestic enquiry is bad for non-compliance of natural justice.
5. During the domestic enquiry the charges levelled against the workman were found established. So far as the argument advanced on behalf of the workman that while punishing him his previous conduct was not taken into consideration is concerned it is not correct. The Labour Court found on the basis of the record that the conduct of the workman cannot be said to be good as he was warned several times and was suspended also for four days. On these pleadings the employers have stated that the order of termination is fully justified and further that under Section 6-E (2) (b) the termination was approved as the application for approval was accompanied by one month salary and the said application is still pending when the matter is referred. The employers have also, in the alternative, submitted that in case the domestic enquiry conducted by the employers is found suffering from any error of law they may be given opportunity to establish charges against the Labour Court itself. The Labour Court has framed as many as six issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties.
6. The Labour Court finally found as fact that the reference is not bad merely because some proceedings were pending before the conciliation officer and has also found that on the date of reference no conciliation was pending. Therefore this issue was decided against the; employers. On the question of charges the Labour Court has found that the enquiry conducted by the employer was in accordance with law and charges levelled against the workman concerned stand proved. To the argument advanced on behalf of the workman it was found that no show cause notice was given to him after the report of the enquiry officer was submitted. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that during the domestic enquiry the principles of natural justice were fully complied with and the workman has been given full opportunity to defend himself. In this view of the matter if the copy of the report of the enquiry officer is not given to the workman in the enquiry cannot be said to be vitiated because it is admitted case of the parties that no certified standing orders are applicable to the establishment and therefore there is no provision under which the employers were under legal obligation to supply a copy of the enquiry report. On the basis of the aforesaid findings the Labour Court has answered the reference against the workman concerned to the effect that the workman is not entitled for any relief.
7. Before this Court, on behalf of the petitioner-workman, the same arguments were advanced but without demonstrating that the findings arrived at by the Labour Court suffer from any; error of law or that the same are perverse. Thus, in my view, the findings arrived at by the Labour Court do not warrant any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. The writ petition, therefore, has no force. It is accordingly dismissed. The award of the Labour Court is upheld.