PRINCIPAL AMAR SHAHEED INTER COLLEGE DEVARAJ SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT VINOD KUMAR LATE RAGHUBIR PRASAD
LAWS(ALL)-2005-3-119
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on March 24,2005

PRINCIPAL AMAR SHAHEED INTER COLLEGE, DEVARAJ SINGH CHAUHAN Appellant
VERSUS
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, VINOD KUMAR, LATE RAGHUBIR PRASAD Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BANGLORE WATER SUPPY SEWERAGE BOARD V. A. RAJAPPA CASE'S [REFERRED TO]
MRS. SUNDERAMBA V. STATE OF GOA,DAMAN AND PEN [REFERRED TO]
T. RAJAN V. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHAN V. SAMRAT ASHOK TECHNICAL SCHOOL BIDISA [REFERRED TO]
CORPORATION OF CITY OF NAGPUR CORPORATION OF CITY OF NAGPUR CITY OF NAGPUR CORPORATION VS. ITS EMPLOYEES:FULSING MISTRY:N H MAJUMDAR [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI J D TYTLER VIRENDER SAXENA VS. RAM NATH [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHANDRA MATHE VS. JIWAJI UNIVERSITY [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SHAKUNTLA VS. TAMANNA SPECIAL SCHOOL [LAWS(DLH)-2006-4-3] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.)The petitioner has challenged the impugned award dated 19.2.2000 published on 2.2.2001 passed by Labour Court Agra holding that the termination of the workman- Vinod Kumarrespondent No. 2 is illegal.
(2.)Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner-institution is recognized private school which receives grant-in- aid from the State Government. It imparts education to children upto Intermediate classes. Respondent No. 2 was appointed on 14.11.1985 as temporary safai karmachari in the institution.
(3.)It is submitted that respondent No. 2 did not perform his work regularly and properly and did not improve his conduct as such a show cause notice dated 14.11.1986 was issued to him to show as to why he be not suspended for dereliction of duty. No reply was given by respondent No. 2 to the show cause notice and he also did not improve his work and conduct. He was thereafter placed under suspension vide order dated 4.3.1987 vide annexure 4 to the writ petition. It is further submitted that disciplinary proceedings were initiated and respondent No. 2 admitted his guilt vide letters dated 6.3.87 and 10.3.87 appended as Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition. A preliminary enquiry report was submitted that a prima facie case was made out against him. consequently charge sheet was sent to the respondent No. 2 through registered post on 11.6.87 which was also not replied, hence his services were accordingly terminated on 13.7.1987. An appeal was preferred by him to the District Inspector of Schools against the order of termination which was dismissed on the ground that the appeal lies to the Manager and not directly to the District Inspector of Schools. The Workman then raised an industrial dispute which was referred to Labour Court Agra in the following terms : ^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed fouksn dqekj iq= Jhj?kqohj izlkn in teknkj dh lsok;sa fnukad 13&7&87 lslekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr vFkok oS/kkfud gS \ ;fn ugha] rkslEcfU/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSrFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr \**


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.