Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, VIRENDER SINGH, JJ.
Madan Lal – Appellant
Versus
The Headmaster, Lawrence School and Another – Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No. 15 of 2016
Decided On : 02-06-2023
Letter’s Patent Act - Clause 10 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10, 11-A, 331 (a and b) - Trade Union Act, 1926 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 125 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Letters Patent Appeal - Probation period - Dismiss from service - Appellant has filed present Letters Patent Appeal against judgment passed – While exercising powers under Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, Labour Court should not give benefit to petitioner, on its misplaced sympathy.
Findings of the Court:
Court is of view that learned Labour Court has not rightly exercised its jurisdiction, as well as, powers, under Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act and order has simply been passed on misplaced or mistaken sympathy, as there is nothing on record to justify interference by learned Labour Court in order of dismissal, passed by authorities - Said conclusion of learned Labour Court squarely falls within mischief of term, perverse - It can be stated that learned Writ Court has rightly interfered with findings, so recorded by learned Labour Court, in favour of school authorities - Order passed by learned Writ Court is upheld.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
1. The appellant, Madan Lal has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letter’s Patent Act of High Court of Judicature of Lahore, as applicable to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, against the judgment dated 23.6.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Writ Court’) in CWPs No. 5449 of 2013 and 4600 of 2014.
2. The parties to the present lis are referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned Writ Court.
3. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, may be summed up, as under:
“Whether the dismissal of services of Shri Madan Lal (Cook) S/o late Shri Ganga Ram by the Headmaster (Officiating) of the Lawrence School Sanwara, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. after conducting domestic enquiry w.e.f. 22.12.2003 is legal and justified? If not, what relief of back wages, seniority and amount of compensation the aggrieved workman is entitled to?”
4. The said reference has been made on the demand notice, submitted by petitioner Madan Lal. According to the petitioner, he was engaged as a Helper with the respondent School on 3.8.1991 and thereafter, he was promoted as Bearer on 1.1.1987 on probation of two years. After successfully completing the probation period, the petitioner was confirmed on 1.1.1989. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Cook w.e.f. 1.8.1998. However, as per the stand taken by the petitioner, he was dismissed by the respondent on 22.12.2003.
5. He has assailed his dismissal on the ground that the same is violative of Section 331 (a and b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to him, the Headmaster of the respondentSchool was not competent to dismiss him from service. No appropriate inquiry was stated to have been conducted and the allegations of alleged forgery are stated to be false.
6. According to him, he was being victimized due to the fact that he was the General Secretary of the Workmen Association. According to him, he has not committed any misconduct by withdrawing the Education Allowances for study of his children.
7. On the basis of above facts, he has prayed that his dismissal is bad in law and as such, he has sought relief of back wages, seniority and amount of compensation.
8. The said claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondentschool before the LabourcumConciliation Officer, in which the factual position, regarding his engagement in the school, as Helper and later, his promotion to the post of Cook, has not been disputed.
9. However, according to the stand taken by the respondentSchool, the petitioner was chargesheeted for fraud, dishonesty, submission of forged documents, making of false declaration to gain monetary benefits by misleading the school authorities and claiming Education Allowance for his children illegally.
10. It is averred by the respondent that the petitioner was chargesheeted on 8.11.2000. An inquiry was conducted, in which, the Inquiry Officer has concluded that the petitioner has committed fraud and, as such, he has been held guilty. Consequently, his services were terminated on 23.12. 2003.
11. When the reference was received by the Industrial TribunalcumLabour Court, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Labour Court’), the following issues were framed:
2. If issue No. 1 is proved to what relief of back wages, seniority and amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to? OPP
3. Whether the respondent was not an employer of petitioner? If so, its effect? OPR
4. Whether the school is not an industry? OPR
5. Relief.
10. After considering the material placed before the learned Labour Court and the evidence led, the reference has been an
Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act are reproduced as power of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.
The Labour Court has wide power to consider and scrutinize the entire evidence, including the correctness of the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, and has the discretion to interfere with the qu....
(1) Where an employer has failed to make enquiry before dismissal or discharge of a workman, it is open for him to justify action before Labour Court by leading evidence before it.(2) Onus is entirel....
The Labour Court must record subjective satisfaction regarding the proportionality of punishment before modifying a dismissal to a lesser penalty under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Misconducts - Award Modified - Workman was earning by plying rickshaw since his dismissal i.e. from 1990, appropriate relief may be moulded in favour of workman by tilting balance -Workman be paid re....
The court upheld the dismissal of the employee for attempted theft, confirming the fairness of the domestic inquiry and the appropriateness of the punishment despite claims of procedural irregulariti....
The court's decision emphasized the importance of the petitioner's genuine interest in joining the transferred post and the application of jurisdictional provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the liberal interpretation of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, emphasizing the power of the Tribunal to set aside the order of ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the employer must follow the relevant provisions of the I.D. Act before terminating the service of an employee, and failure to do so may entit....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
