# U.P. Corp. Fed. Ltd. & Anr v. P.O., Industrial Tribunal, Lko & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 889
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-12
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 1006454 of 2011
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-corp-fed-ltd-anr-v-p-o-industrial-tribunal-lko-ors-50787
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 - Section 6F & 6H - U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965 - Sections 70, 135 -
Petitioner
challenges
U.P.
Industrial
Tribunal's award dated 23.04.2011, which
set
aside
respondent's
termination,
directed his reinSt.ment from 01.01.1985,
and awarded 50% back wages - Also
challenges
order
dated
09.03.2010
rejecting
its
objection
to
Industrial
Tribunal's jurisdiction over cooperative
society disputes - Respondent/employee
worked continuously from 16.02.1982 to
31.12.1984, completing over 240 days in a
year - His termination was without notice
or compliance with Section 6F of U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act - No contrary
evidence was presented and Tribunal's
order
is
found
proper
-
Workman
approached Labour Court - Petitioners
raised
preliminary
objection
to
its
jurisdiction, wrongly rejected by order
dated 09.03.2010 - As held in Ghaziabad
Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Labour Court has
no jurisdiction over disputes involving
societies under Societies Act, 1965 -
Impugned orders set aside. (Para 1, 2, 17,
31, 32)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. U.P. Corp. Fed. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. P.O., Industrial Tribunal, Lko & Ors.
889
(2023) 9 ILRA 889
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 1006454 of 2011

U.P. Corp. Fed. Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
P.O., Industrial Tribunal, Lko & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:

Counsel for the Respondents:

Civil Law - U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 - Section 6F & 6H - U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965 - Sections 70, 135 -
Petitioner
challenges
U.P.
Industrial
Tribunal's award dated 23.04.2011, which
set
aside
respondent's
termination,
directed his reinSt.ment from 01.01.1985,
and awarded 50% back wages - Also
challenges
order
dated
09.03.2010
rejecting
its
objection
to
Industrial
Tribunal's jurisdiction over cooperative
society disputes - Respondent/employee
worked continuously from 16.02.1982 to
31.12.1984, completing over 240 days in a
year - His termination was without notice
or compliance with Section 6F of U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act - No contrary
evidence was presented and Tribunal's
order
is
found
proper
-
Workman
approached Labour Court - Petitioners
raised
preliminary
objection
to
its
jurisdiction, wrongly rejected by order
dated 09.03.2010 - As held in Ghaziabad
Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Labour Court has
no jurisdiction over disputes involving
societies under Societies Act, 1965 -
Impugned orders set aside. (Para 1, 2, 17,
31, 32)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:
1. Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. Vs
Additional Labour Commissioner & ors., 2008 (1)
SCC (LNS) 90

2. Dharappa Vs Bijapur Coop. Milk Producers
Societies Union Ltd., (2007) 9 SCC 109

3.
K.A.
Annamma
Vs
Secretary,
Cochin
Cooperative Hospital Society Ltd., 2018 (2) SCC
729

4. Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. Vs Addl.
Labour Commissioner, 2007 (11) SCC 756 (Para
65)

5. Ramji Lal Tewari Vs U.P. Co-operative Sugar
Federation Ltd. Lko. Special Appeal No. 524 of
2015 (decided on 02.11.2015)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. The award passed by U.P. Industrial
Tribunal, Lucknow dated 23.4.2011 has been
questioned by the petitioner, wherein the
claim of the respondent-employee has been
allowed, and his order of termination has
been set aside and the petitioners have been
directed to reinstate him in service with effect
from 1.1.1985 and he has also been held
entitled to 50 per cent back wages.

2. The petitioner has also challenged the
order dated 9.3.2010 whereby the preliminary
objection raised by the petitioner with regard
to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to
decide
the
dispute
pertaining
to
the
cooperative society has been rejected.

3. The facts in brief necessary for
adjudication of the present controversy are
that respondent No.3-employee, namely,
Ajay Kumar Mishra was appointed on
adhoc basis for 89 days with effect from
16.2.1982. His employment was extended
from time to time till 31.12.1984 after
which he was not allowed to continue in
service.
890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Aggrieved by the action of the
petitioner in terminating his services he
moved Conciliation Officer under U.P.
Industrial Tribunals Act, 1947. On failure
of the conciliation proceedings the matter
was referred for adjudication by the
Tribunal on the question with regard to the
validity of his termination with effect from
1.1.1985. Notices were issued to the
petitioner who appeared before the tribunal
and contested the claim of the respondentemployee. It was stated that he was initially
appointed on the post of Operator and
posted at Copaganj, District Azamgarh on
16.2.1982 and subsequently transferred to
Cold Storage, Shahjahanpur (Jaunpur) on
his
own
request
with
effect
from
12.11.1983. Some disciplinary inquiry was
also initiated against the employee as there
was damage to the potatoes in the said cold
storage due to which he was transferred
from
Shahjahanpur
to
Head
Office,
Lucknow where he worked till 31.12.1984.
Subsequently, his name was struck off from
the attendance register.

5. In the written statement filed by the
petitioner it was stated that the employee
was engaged only for 89 days but
subsequently his services were extended
from time to time considering that his
services were needed in the working of the
federation.

6. The employee himself gave
evidence in support of his claim while Sri
Lal Bahadur, Additional , Additional
District Cooperative Federation Officer
appeared for the employer and after hearing
both the parties the Tribunal rejected the
claim of the employee holding that his
services had come to an end on expiry of
the period prescribed in his letter of
appointment and further he was not entitled
to any relief vide order dated 3.4.1991.

7. The employee being aggrieved of
the order of Tribunal dated 3.4.1991 filed
writ petition before this Court being writ
petition No.1350 (S/S) of 1994 (Ajay
Kumar Mishra Vs. Industrial Tribunal (II),
Lucknow). This Court by means of
judgment and order dated 11.4.2008
quashed the award dated 3.4.1991 and
remanded the matter back to the Tribunal
for adjudication afresh.

8. When the matter was remanded
back the petitioner submitted his written
statement again and submitted that the
controversy in question could not be
adjudicated by the Tribunal as per the
judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Limited Vs.
Additional Labour Commissioner and
others, 2008 (1) SCC (LNS) 90 where it
has been held that provisions of U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act would apply for
adjudication of dispute in the matters of
employment of the society to the exclusion
of other labour laws including U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

9. The preliminary objection raised by
the petitioner was rejected by means of
order dated 09.03.2010 which order has
also been impugned in the present writ
petition.

10. Subsequent to rejection of the
preliminary objection the matter was
proceeded with and the statements of the
employer along with one Vinod Kumar
Pandey,
Assistant
Accountant
and
Accountant appeared for the employee
were recorded while one Rakesh Kumar
Singh, Senior Assistant posted at Lucknow
appeared on behalf of the employer.

11. The Tribunal after considering the
evidence adduced by both the parties was
9 All. U.P. Corp. Fed. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. P.O., Industrial Tribunal, Lko & Ors.
891
of the considered view that the employee
has worked for more than 240 days in a
calendar year preceding his termination and
also that his termination was illegal and
arbitrary and no procedure was followed
and no notice was given to him. It was also
considered that even in the inquiry
conducted
against
the
petitioner
no
opportunity was granted to him and
accordingly while allowing his claim the
order of termination dated 1.1.1985 was set
aside and he was directed to be reinstated
in service along with 50 per cent backwages.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
while
assailing
the
said
award
has
submitted that the same is illegal and
arbitrary in as much as the employee was
appointed for a fixed period of time on
expiry of which his services came to an end
and, hence, the order is illegal and
arbitrary. It has further been contended that
the employee has not completed 240 days
in a calendar year and on this ground also
the relief as prayed by him could not have
been granted.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent,
on the other hand, has supported the
impugned order. He submits that the Tribunal
has duly considered all the material and dealt
with all the objections preferred by the
employer and after categorically recording
that the petitioner has completed 240 days in
a calendar year and his services were
terminated dehors the provisions of law. The
oral order of termination dated 1.1.1985 was
set aside and the thee is no infirmity in the
same requiring interference of this Court in
exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

14. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the records.

15. With regard to validity of the
award dated 23.4.2011 it is noticed that the
Tribunal has considered the fact that the
employee was appointed on 18.1.1985 on
the post of Operator after due selection
wherein he also faced interview and was
placed in the sale of Rs.240-380/- and was
posted at Gauriganj Cold Storage, District
Azamgarh. He joined on the said post on
16.2.1982 and had worked diligently on the
said post till he was transferred to Cold
Storage
at
Shahganj
(Jaunpur)
on
11.7.1983. He had worked at Cold Storage
at Shahganj till 31.7.1984 subsequent to
which he was transferred to Headquarters
at Lucknow where he was allowed to work
till 31.12.1984.

16. With regard to involvement of the
petitioner in the destruction of potatoes
stored in the cold storage, it was informed
that inquiry in this regard has been held and
it was found that the air conditioning plant
was not working properly due to which
temperature could not be lowered . It was
further found that ammonia was not filled
in the machine due to which temperature
did not fall and accordingly four operators
were found to be negligent , therefore, their
tenure was not extended and new persons
had already been appointed in their place.
The employee had also filed additional
documents including his service record,
attendance register etc. according to which
from 1st January, to June, 2008 he had
worked for 196 days and till 13 December,
84 days, total 139 days and totaling to 308
days in 1984 and accordingly the Tribunal
has duly concluded that the employee had
worked for 308 days in 1984 days i.e. more
than
240
days
which
is
statutory
requirement under Industrial Disputes Act
and consequently held that he is entitled to
be granted the benefit of Section 6F of the
Act of 1947. He also considered the fact
892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that he had been appointed after following
due procedure and he was selected by
means of interview. The Tribunal did not
believe the version of the employer that
appointment letter was issued without
jurisdiction as no material or document was
filed in support of this contention. It was
considered
that
even
after
the
first
appointment letter was issued to him his
services was repeatedly extended for 89
days and also considered that he had served
in more than one District and held that his
appointment
was
not
illegal
and
accordingly
held
that
the
order
of
termination was illegal and arbitrary and he
was entitled to the benefits of Section 6F of
the U.P Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
consequently direction was issued to the
petitioner to reinstate him in service along
with 50 percent back-wages.

17. This Court does not find any
infirmity with the order of the Tribunal on
the merits. It was fully established that the
respondent employee has worked for more
than 240 days in a calendar year and also
that he had continuously worked with the
petitioner from 16.2.1982 till 31.12.1984
and no procedure was followed prior to
passing the order of termination and no
salary in lieu of the notice was given and
consequently he was entitled to the benefits
of Section 6F of U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act no material has been placed before him
for taking contrary view than what has been
taken by the Tribunal and accordingly this
Court finds that there is no infirmity in the
order of Industrial Tribunal.

18. The next question which has been
vehemently argued by the petitioner is with
regard to the validity of the order dated
9.3.2010
by
which
the
preliminary
objection regarding the maintainability of
the proceedings was rejected. It has been
submitted that in a dispute between
employer and employee of a Cooperative
Society remedy for the employee lies under
Section 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies
Act, and the matter has to be referred for
arbitration either by the Registrar himself
or to any other person appointed by him. It
is submitted that the preliminary objection
raised by the petitioner was wrongly
rejected and that the award passed by the
Industrial
Tribunal
is
fully
without
jurisdiction. In support of his submissions
he has relied upon the judgment in the case
of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Limited
Vs. Additional Labour Commissioner and
others, 2008 (1) SCC (LNS) 90.

19.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent, on the other hand, has
submitted that the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Ghaziabad (supra) is
not a good law in as much as it had not
taken into consideration the previous
judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
Dharappa
Vs.
Bijapur
Coop.
Milk
Producers Societies Union Ltd. (2007) 9
SCC 109, where the Supreme Court has
held that unless the statute specifically
ousts the jurisdiction of the Labour Court,
both
courts
would
have
concurrent
jurisdiction and the employee of the
cooperative can raise the dispute either
before the Labour Court or before the
Registrar under the Cooperative Societies
Act.

20. Similar controversy was decided
by Supreme Court dealing with the
provisions
of
Karnataka
Cooperative
Societies Act and it was held that even after
amendment of Section 17 of Karnataka
Cooperative Societies Act and held that
Even though Clause (d) was added
in Section 70(2) with effect from 20-11976, Section 70(1) it did not exclude or
9 All. U.P. Corp. Fed. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. P.O., Industrial Tribunal, Lko & Ors.
893
take away the jurisdiction of the Labour
Courts and Industrial Tribunals under
the ID Act to decide an industrial dispute
between the society and its employees.
Consequently, even after insertion of
Clause (d) in Section 70(2) with effect from
20-1-1976, the
Labour
Courts
and
Industrial Tribunals under the Industrial
Disputes
Act,
continued
to
have
jurisdiction to decide disputes between
societies and their employees.

21. I t was further submitted that the
judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
Dharappa Sangappa Nandyal Vs. Bijapur
Co-operative Milk Producers Societies
Union Ltd was affirmed by the Supreme
Court in the case of K.A. Annamma Vs.
Secretary, Cochin Cooperative Hospital
Society Limited, 2018(2) SCC 729 and held
that Karnataka Societies Act did not create
any
express
bar
for
the
Labour
Court/Industrial Tribunal from deciding the
service
disputes
arising
between
a
Cooperative
Society's
Employee
and
his/her Employer (Co-operative Society).

Secondly,
any
Co-operative
Society's
Employee
satisfying
the
definition of the expression "Workman",
"Industrial Dispute" and the Co-operative
Society to be an "Industry" as defined
under the Industrial Disputes Act has the
choice to select one forum out of the two
forums for filing a case in relation to his
service dispute,

22. It was submitted that Uttar Pradesh
Cooperative Societies Act does not bar
jurisdiction of Industrial Disputes Act.
Section 135 of the U.P Cooperative Societies
Act specifically provide for exclusion of the
provisions of U.P Industrial Disputes Act, but
the said section has not been given assent to
by the President and consequently is not
enforceable in State of U.P. It was
vehemently submitted that unless a provision
is assented to by the President, it cannot be
deemed to be part of the statute, and cannot
be taken into account for determining the
intention of the legislature. It is for the
aforesaid reasons it was submitted that for
deciding a dispute between the employee of
cooperative society and the cooperative
society judgement of Supreme Court in the
case of Dharappa Sangappa Nandyal Vs.
Bijapur
Co-operative
Milk
Producers
Societies Union Ltd would fully prevail over
the judgment of Ghaziabad Zila (Supra ) and
accordingly there is no infirmity in the order
passed by the Tribunal.

23. It was further submitted that in case
the U.P Industrial Disputes Act is made
inapplicable to the employees of the
Cooperative
Societies,
then
such
a
employees/workman would be unjustifiably
be deprived of the benefit of provisions of 6H
and other similar beneficial provisions
provided for in the industrial disputes act. On
the other hand in case there disputes are
adjudicated by the Registrar, Cooperative
Societies then the general law would apply,
and the workmen would be deprived of
getting an order for reinstatement in case of
illegal termination. It was further submitted
that
such
a
interpretation
would
be
discriminatory and also deprive the Workman
of the cooperative societies of the beneficial
piece of legislation introduced by the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

24.

We
have
considered
the
arguments of the parties and perused the
records.

25. To answer the said question raised
by
the
petitioner
with
regard
to
applicability of provisions of section 70 of
Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act in
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
matters pertaining to resolution the disputes
between the employees of cooperative
society and the cooperative society and
whether such disputes can be tried by
labour court under the provisions of Uttar
Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it
would be relevant to consider the related
provisions of both these acts in this regard.

26. The controversy involved in the
present case is essentially legal in nature
and it would be necessary to refer to the
statutory provisions of Section 70 of U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act:-

"70. Disputes which may be
referred
to
arbitration. -
(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any
law for the time being in force, if any
dispute
relating
to
the
constitution,
management of the business of a cooperative society other than a dispute
regarding disciplinary action taken against
a paid servant of a society arises-

(a)
among
members,
past
members and persons claiming through
members, past members and deceased
members; or

(b) between a member, past
member or any person claiming through, a
member,
past
member
or
deceased
member, and the society, its committee or
management of any officer, agent or
employee of the society, including any past
officer, agent or employee;

(c) between the society or its
committee and any past committee, any
officer, agent or employee or any past
officer, past agent or past employee or the
nominee, heir or legal representative of any
deceased officer, deceased agent, or
deceased employee of the society; or

(d)
between
a
co-operative
society and any other co-operative society
or societies:

such dispute shall be referred to
the Registrar for action in accordance with
the provisions of this Act and the rules and
no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain
any suit or other proceeding in respect of
any such dispute:

[Provided that a dispute relating
to an election under the provisions of this
Act or rules made thereunder shall not be
referred to the Registrar until after the
declaration of the result of such election]

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), the following shall be deemed
to be included in dispute relating to the
constitution, management or the business
of a co-operative society, namely -

(a) claims for amounts due when
demand for payment is made is either
refused or not complied with whether such
claims are admitted or not by the opposite
party;

(b) a claim by a surety against
the principal debtor where the society has
recovered from the surety any amount in
respect of any debt or demand due to it
from the principal debtor as a result of
the default of the principal debtor,
whether such debt or demand is admitted
or not;

(c) a claim by a society for any
loss caused to it by a member, officer,
agent, or employee including past or
deceased
member,
officer,
agent,
or
employee,
whether
individually
or
collectively and whether such loss be
admitted or not; and
9 All. U.P. Corp. Fed. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. P.O., Industrial Tribunal, Lko & Ors.
895

(d) all matters relating to the
objects of the society mentioned in the byelaws as also those relating to the election
of office-bearers.

(3) If any question arises whether
a dispute referred to the Registrar under
this section is a dispute relating to the
constitution, management or the business
of co-operative society, decision thereon of
the Registrar shall be final and shall not be
called in question in any court.

27.

The
provisions
of
U.P.
Cooperative
Societies
Act,
1965
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1965")
were duly considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad
Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. vs. Addl. Labour
Commissioner, 2007 (11) SCC 756 and in
para 65 of the said order, the Apex Court
held that in a matter pertaining to dispute
raised by the workman, the remedy lies
under Section 70 of the Act, 1965 and not
before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
under the provisions of U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Act, 1947"). For ready reference
para 65 of the said judgment is quoted
herein below :-

"65. We are therefore of the view
that
the Asst.
Labour
Commissioner
(ALC)'s jurisdiction was wrongly invoked
and
his
order
dated
15.03.2003
under section 6H, U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 is without jurisdiction and hence
null and void and it can be observed that,
in view of the said general legal principle,
it is immaterial whether or not the
government
has
enforced
section135
(UPCS Act) because, in any case the said
provision (S.135) had been included in the
Act only by way of clarification and
abundant caution."

28. The other judgment relied by the
workman/respondents being in the case of
K.A. Annamma Vs. The Secretary, Cochin
Co-operative
Hospital
Society
Ltd.,
2018(2) SCC 729. In the aforesaid case
similar controversy had arisen before the
Apex Court with regard to provisions of
Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and the
Apex Court held that the disputes can be
adjudicated under both the Acts i.e. Kerala
Cooperative Societies Act as well as the
Act, 1947, as they enjoy concurrent
jurisdiction to decide any service dispute
arising between the Cooperative Society's
employee
and
his/her
employer
(Cooperative Society).

29. In the present controversy the issue
which has been raised by both the parties is
as to whether an employee of the
Cooperative Society can maintain an
application pertaining to his service dispute
taking recourse of the Act, 1965 or the Act,
1947. This Court has also considered the
judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
as well as the statutory provisions and finds
itself bound by the judgment of the Apex
Court, in the case of Ghaziabad Zila
Sahkari Bank Ltd.(supra), where the
Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering
the provisions of the Act, 1965, in great
details along with Section 135 of the said
Act, have concluded that provisions of the
Act, 1947 stands excluded with regard to
the employees of the Cooperative Societies.

30. The Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Ramji Lal Tewari Vs. U.P.
Co-operative Sugar Federation Ltd. Lko.
Special Appeal No. 524 of 2015 (decided
on 02.11.2015), has also relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd.
(supra) and held that if there is any dispute
between the employee and employer of a
896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cooperative Society the matter has to be
resolved
as
per
provisions
of
U.P
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.

31. In the present case, the workman
had
approached
the
Labour
Court,
Lucknow
and
preliminary
objection
regarding maintainability had been raised
by the petitioners but was rejected by the
Labour Court by means of order dated
09.03.2010 and accordingly, the Labour
Court fell in error in rejecting the
preliminary objections by means of order
dated 09.03.2010. A Division Bench of this
Court has also relied upon the judgment in
the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank
Ltd.
(supra)
and
from
the
above
discussions, it is clear that the Labour
Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and
decide the said matter pertaining to a
Society constituted under the Act, 1965.

32. In light of the above, the
impugned award dated 23.04.2011 passed
by
the
Presiding
Officer,
Industrial
Tribunal
(2)
U.P.,
Lucknow
in
in
Adjudication Case No.113/1988 as well as
order dated 09.03.2010 are hereby set
aside.

33. The writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 896
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ-C No. 1006884 of 2007

Jugal Kishore Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajendra
Nath,
Km.
Gitanjali
Shukla,
Nirankar Singh, R.K. Kidwai, Sunil Sharma,
Vinod Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule
7 (X) - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 14, 16 & 311(2) - Petitioner was
in government service, due to serious
illness,
he
couldn't
submit
medical
certificate - Department initiated enquiry
and
issued
show
cause
notice
-
Considering his past misconduct, including
absconding in 1980, and assuming no
fresh enquiry needed, impugned order
passed - Charged employee (petitioner)
failed to respond to charges or appear
before Enquiry Officer despite due notice -
As per Rules, 1999, if charged government
servant fails to appear despite notice,
then Enquiry Officer can proceed ex parte
- Enquiry Officer did not proceed ex parte,
despite petitioner's non-appearance and
failure to submit reply concluded enquiry
in violation of Rules, 1999, thereby
vitiating
proceedings
-
Delay
is
immaterial,
as
petitioner
initially
approached wrong forum and never raised
question
of
maintainability
-
Upon
realizing Labour Court lacked jurisdiction,
he withdrew and filed present petition -
Enquiry stands vitiated in law, as order
suffers from illegality and infirmity -
Impugned order quashed - Respondent
directed
to
release
dues,
including
pension, for period 1991 to 2007. (Para
22, 24, 26, 31, 33, 34, 35)

Writ Petition partly allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Satwati Deswal Vs St. of Har. & ors., 2010(1)
SCC 126 (Para 5 to 9)

2. Mafatlal Narandas Barot Vs J.D. Rathod, AIR
996 SC 1364 (Para 12)