1. By way of this petition, the petitioner-workman has challenged the judgement and order dated 10.07.2009, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Godhra, in Reference(LCG) No.733 of 1998(old), Reference(LCG) No. 112 of 1998(New), whereby the Reference Court has rejected the said Reference.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner-workman was employed with respondent since last 20 years. However, the petitioner-workman was terminated from the service on the ground of misappropriate of fund. Therefore, the petitioner has raised Industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Godhra, being Reference (LCG) No. 733 of 1998(old) and Reference (LCG) No.112 of 2008(new). The Reference Court after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence has rejected the said reference, against which the present petition is filed by the petitioner-workman.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Reference Court erred in passing the impugned judgment and order. He further contended that the Reference Court failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. He further submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error in approving the oral termination order without there being any inquiry or without any procedure. Therefore, he has prayed to allow the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgement and order of the Reference Court and submitted that the Reference after considering the materials on record has passed the impugned judgement and award. Therefore, Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the present petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record. The Reference Court after considering the evidence has observed that the petitioner-workman himself admitted that he has misappropriated the fund and sought for some time to refund the said amount. An endeavor is made by learned counsel for the petitioner that no permission was sought for holding inquiry for terminating the service of the petitioner. However, the petitioner-workman himself remained absent from his duty and admitted that he has misappropriated the fund, therefore, there is no need to hold any inquiry even before the Reference Court.
6. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the Reference Court in rejecting the reference is just and appropriate. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and hence, I find no reasons to entertain the present petition.
7. In the result, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI,J.) pawan Top