Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36107 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Shakuntala Devi Respondent :- Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal (4) U.P. Agra And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The present petition is directed against the labour court award dated 28.2.2017 whereby the reference made to it vide order dated 12.8.2010 had been answered against the petitioner. The reference made by the appropriate Government reads as under :-
• "क्यया ससेवयाययोजककों दयारया श्रममिक शककक तलया दसेववी पत्नवी श्रवी सतवीश चकद्र चतकरर श्रसेणवी कमिरचयारवी ककी ससेवयाएक मदनयाकक ०१.१२.२००९ ससे समियाप्त मकयया जयानया उमचत एवक ववैधयामनक हवै?यमद नहहीं तयो श्रममिक क्यया लयाभ/अनकतयोष पयानसे कया अधधकयारवी हवै ?"
The question which was referred to the labour court as to whether the employer had illegally terminated the services of the petitioner, Class IV employee, with effect from 1.12.2009.
The labour court has returned a categorical finding of fact that a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner by appointing of an Inquiry Officer. The communications were sent by the Inquiry Officer as also the Manager of the Institution intimating the dates fixed in the inquiry but at no point of time, the petitioner had submitted any reply to the Inquiry Officer nor had participated in the inquiry despite having knowledge of the dates fixed therein. After receipt of the intimation of inquiry, the petitioner kept on representing the Manager of the Institution who repeatedly intimated her to participate in the inquiry. The finding returned by the labour court is that the petitioner had admitted in her cross- examination that the Manager of the Institution had intimated about the date fixed and no application was moved by her for change of the Inquiry Officer. The findings of fact returned by the labour court that sufficient opportunity had been granted to the petitioner to participate in the inquiry can not be assailed by the petitioner.
The submission that the inquiry report had not been provided to the petitioner along with the second show cause notice is not sufficient to vitiate the inquiry report which is dated 16.10.2009. Mere non-service of the inquiry report upon the petitioner would not be sufficient to say that the charges were wrongly found proved against her.
This apart, the petitioner himself had challenged the decision of dismissal of her services. At no stage of the proceeding before the labour court, the petitioner had assailed the charges levelled against her. The labour court has recorded a categorical finding of fact with regard to each charge levelled against the petitioner being found proved.
These findings cannot be upturned in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the grounds raised by the petitioner, so as to take a different view.
The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 Pratima