ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 07.02.2004 (Annexure-P/8) passed by Labour Court and order dated 14.09.2004 (Annexure-P/12) passed by Industrial Court.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that order of termination was passed against the petitioner on 07.02.2001. In said order, it was mentioned that previous history and behavior of petitioner was taken into consideration. He was habitual in inciting the employees to do strike and disobedience. He has also abused and assaulted the Dipo Manager on 07.02.2001. Finding was given that petitioner was consistently engaged in works which is contrary to the interest of Corporation. On said grounds, his services were terminated. It is submitted that order is bad in law as there was non-

compliance of Rule 12, Sub-Rule-4 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. Labour Court and Industrial Court failed to take into account aforesaid law and irregularities in procedure which has been followed by the authority in terminating services.

3. Matter is pending since 2005 and today, none is appearing for the respondents, therefore, respondents is proceeded ex-parte.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties.

5. On going through the order dated 07.02.2001, it is found that only case of management was described in the order dated 07.02.2001. What defence was taken by petitioner or what representation was given by him and whether any enquiry has been conducted or not has not been mentioned in said order.

6. Rule 12 (4) of The Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rule, 1963 is quoted as under:-

"12. Disciplinary action for misconduct-

*** (4) No punishment shall be imposed on an employee unless proved guilty of misconduct in an enquiry conducted in the following manner:-

(a) The manage other officer authorised by him in this behalf shall give to the employee a charge sheet clearly setting forth the mis-conduct charged and the circumstances appearing against him and requiring his explanation;

(b) The employee shall be given for submitting his explanation a period of at least 24 hours if he is charged with a minor misconduct and at least 72 hours if he is charged with major misconduct.

(c) An employee shall be allowed to defend by himself or the representative of employees, if he to desires.

(d) Except in cases where he admits the charge levelled against him the employee shell be permitted to produce witness in his defence and cross-examine any witness on whose evidence the charge rests;

(e) The substance of the evidence Shall, be recorded and read over;

(f) An order of punishment shall be in writing and shall be issued over the signature of the manager or other officer authorised under standing order (1)(a). A copy of the order passed awarding the punishment shall be given to the employee;

(g) In case of an employee other than the one belonging to the clerical, technical or supervisory staff the manager can suspend him pending enquiry into an alleged major misconduct for a Period not exceeding four days;

(h) The Manager may suspend a clerical, technical or supervisory employee for a period of three months pending enquiry into major misconduct alleged against him and Shall pay suspension allowance to such employee at the rate of half of the average wage;

(i) The order of suspension shall be in writing and may take effect immediately on communication thereof to the employee. If no action is taken within a period of six months then the amount of wages for the period of suspension shell be payable in full."

7. No inquiry was conducted in respect of charges which were made against the petitioner. He was not given opportunity of hearing. In absence of injury and in violation of rights of natural justice order has been passed.

8. In view of same, impugned order dated 07.02.2004 (Annexure-P/8) passed by Labour Court and order dated 14.09.2004 (Annexure-P/