Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 547
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
Sri Sudeb Suna - Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur and another - Opposite Parties
O.J.C. No.6305 of 1994
Decided on : 06-09-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s. N.K. Mishra, B. Dasmohapatra.
For the Opposite Parties :Addl. Govt. Advocate, Mr. J. Pattnaik, B. Mohanty, T.K. Pattnaik, A. Pattnaik
Suppression of material facts in employment application forms amounts to fraud and justifies termination. Temporary employees are governed by the terms and conditions of their offer of appointment.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Employment Termination - 457, 380 of the I.P.C. - Clause-12(i) - Clause-13
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a sweeper at Rourkela Steel Plant, was terminated from service for suppression of facts regarding a pending criminal case. The petitioner argued that the termination was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court found that the petitioner had suppressed material facts regarding the pending criminal case, violating the terms of the offer of appointment. The court held that the termination was justified based on the petitioner's suppression and misrepresentation of material facts.
Issues: The issues were whether the termination was legal and justified, and if not, what relief the petitioner was entitled to.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's suppression of material facts regarding the pending criminal case amounted to fraud, justifying the termination. The court also emphasized that the petitioner's engagement was subject to successful completion of training and that the provisions of Article 311(2) did not apply to the petitioner's temporary employment.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments.
JUDGMENT :
S.N. Prasad, J.
Award dated 4.11.1993 passed in I.D. Case No.60 of 1992 passed by the Labour Court, Sambalpur is under challenge whereby and where under following reference i.e., “Whether the action of the management of Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela in terminating the employment of Sri Sudeb Suna, Sweeper w.e.f. 14.07.1981 is legal and/or justified ? If not, to what relief Sri Suna is entitled to ?”, has been answered against the petitioner-workman, hence this writ petition.
2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner-workman is that he was selected after due process of selection as Learner Sweeper on 20.12.1979 and on completion of successful training, he was appointed as a regular Sweeper on 23.06.1980. The petitioner was working to the best satisfaction of the authorities without any complaint from any quarter till 10.02.1981, when he received a letter from the management by which he was called upon to show cause for giving false information regarding involvement in court case and for suppression of facts in attestation form. In reply to the said letter, the petitioner gave his response stating therein that he had not intentionally suppressed the fact of his alleged involvement in the Court case and requested the management to keep the said matter in abeyance till disposal of criminal case pending before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction. After receiving the reply from the petitioner-workman, without any charge-sheet or enquiry, the management has issued a letter being Letter No.514 dated 14.07.1981 removed the petitioner from service.
3. Case of the petitioner is that before inflicting major punishment of removal from service, an enquiry was required but without holding any enquiry since he has been removed from service which is in violation of principle of natural justice and contrary to the provision prescribed in the certified Standing Orders of the management, when the order of removal has not been recalled, the petitioner-workman having no option has raised a dispute and the appropriate government has made reference and referred the matter before the Labour Court, Sambalpur for its adjudication and accordingly it has been answered against opposite party-workman, the petitioner herein.
4. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Labour Court, this writ petition has been filed on the ground that order of removal is absolutely arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable, since the same has been passed without following the principle of natural justice, without holding of enquiry and without following the provision contained in the certified Standing Orders.
Other ground has been taken that the petitioner-workman has raised a ground before the Labour Court that whatever act has been done, that is not intentional but he being an illiterate person has only put his signature in the attestation form which has been filled up by other person, as such he was not known about the contents of attestation form, hence terminating from service will not be proper.
5. Opposite party-management has appeared and filed detail counter affidavit and while placing his case by defending the award, it has been submitted that the Labour Court after taking into consideration all aspect of the matter has passed the order and as such there is no infirmity or perversity in the finding. It has further been submitted that admittedly on the date when the petitioner has filled up attestation form, he was implicated in a criminal case for the offence under Section 457, 380 of the I.P.C. and the petitioner has filled up the attestation form but not given declaration regarding pendency of criminal case upon him but when it was sent for police verification through the D.I.G., Central Industrial Security Force, Rourkela. The CISF personnel has got a report from the Addl. Dist. Magistrate, Sundargarh that there is adverse entry against him and he is facing trial in criminal case pending against him and thereafter show cause notice has been issued
