Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 43 (HP)

H. R. T. C v. NATHU RAM

2004-03-16

R.L.KHURANA

body2004
JUDGMENT : R.L. Khurana, J (Oral).: Respondent Nathu Ram was working as a Driver with the petitioner. He was compulsorily retired from service with effect from 20.9.1993 after he had put in 19 years of service. Dissatisfied with such order of compulsory retirement passed by the petitioner, the respondent raised an industrial dispute. The following dispute was referred to the learned Labour Court for adjudication: "1. Whether the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon Sh. Nathu Ram, driver by the Divisional Manager, H.R.T.C., Shimla w.e.f. 20.9.1993 after his 19 years service in the Corporation without completing the enquiry against him, is legal and justified, if not, to what relief, Sh. Nathu Ram driver is entitled to? 3. Whether the act of alleged second marriage, if any, on the part of Shri Nathu Ram falls within the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, if not, its effect?" 4. The learned Labour Court after holding the necessary inquiry and on the basis of the evidence coming before it vide Award dated 16.4.1999 held that the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon the respondent was bad. The learned Labour Court accordingly directed reinstatement of the respondent in service with all service benefits available to him. Aggrieved by the award dated 16.4.1999 of the learned Labour Court, the petitioner has come up before this Court by way of the present writ petition. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner had contemplated a departmental inquiry against the respondent on two charges, namely, the respondent had failed to maintain his wife Smt Kalawati and his family and secondly, that he had contracted a second marriage during subsistence of his first marriage with Smt Kalawati. For the purpose of holding the departmental inquiry Regional Manager (Inquiries) was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. It appears that since the respondent failed to associate himself in such departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, namely, the Regional Manager (Inquiries) without further proceeding with the inquiry returned the file to the Competent Authority. Thereafter in the year 1993, the Divisional manager of the petitioner, served a notice dated 27.4.1993 upon the respondent proposing the imposed penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the respondent. Reply to the notice was filed by the respondent and jupon consideration of such reply, the petitioner imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on the respondent vide order dated 20.9.1993 as at Annexure-p3. 6. Reply to the notice was filed by the respondent and jupon consideration of such reply, the petitioner imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on the respondent vide order dated 20.9.1993 as at Annexure-p3. 6. At the very outset, it may be stated that the action of the petitioner m imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the respondent was bad, inasmuch as, before imposing penalty, no departmental inquiry as laid down under the relevant service rules was carried out in accordance with law. The learned Labour Court, therefore, has rightly held that the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon the respondent by the petitioner was bad and has rightly set aside such penalty. The respondent was rightly reinstated into service with all service benefits. The impugned award of the learned Labour Court does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety calling for interference by this Court in exercise of the powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Resultantly, there being no merit in the present writ petition, the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.