JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri Manu Saxena for the petitioners. Shri R.R. Yadav argued the matter on behalf of respondent No. 2-workman. 2. Smt. Gulzar Yaseen, Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Keeratpur, Bijnor, and Nagar Palika Parishad through its Executive Officer Shri Vikas Sain, have filed this writ petition to set aside an Award dated 19.8.2002 of the Labour Court, U.P. at Rampur in Adjudication Case No. 45 of 1994, directing the employer to reinstate Shri Chaman Lal-respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 29.1.1993, as if he was in regular service and to pay the entire wages and benefits which he would have been entitled on the ground that the termination of his service by the Nagar Palika Parishad was improver and illegal. 3. Briefly stated the facts, leading to the reference of industrial dispute to the Labour Court, are that the respondent No. 2 workman Chaman Lal was appointed as a Sweeper (Safai Karamchari) on 6.9.1983. His services were regularized on 10.8.1987. The workman alleged in his written statement that he had some dispute with Chandra Pal-Safai Naik on 5.7.1989 and since thereafter Shri Chandra Pal was keeping a grudge and made several false complaints against him. Shri Chandra Pal wanted the applicant-Chaman Lal to leave the job and that in his place some one else be employed from his own family. The Head Clerk was also a party to the conspiracy. On 14.10.1992 Shri Chandra Pal took the Executive Officer for inspections in the area assigned to him which was much larger than the area assigned to other sweepers. The workman was warned and was required to clean the areas of Mohalla Mitha Shaheed and Radhamani assigned to him. He was also given a charge-sheet which was received much after the period within which the workman was required to reply. The charge-sheet was received by him on 5.1.1993 and that a reply was submitted on 7.1.1993. He was not well and was keeping ill during that period. The workman was suffering from ‘Fistula’ and was under treatment in District Hospital, Bijnor since 1.11.1992. The workman appeared before the Executive Officer and requested for leave which was not granted. His services were terminated on 31.1.1993 in an ex-parte proceedings without giving him any opportunity of hearing and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. The employers in their written statement stated that the workman was employed as a Sweeper. The workman appeared before the Executive Officer and requested for leave which was not granted. His services were terminated on 31.1.1993 in an ex-parte proceedings without giving him any opportunity of hearing and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. The employers in their written statement stated that the workman was employed as a Sweeper. He was grossly negligent in performing his work and very often absented from duties. He was suspended and given a charge-sheet to which he did not submit a proper reply. In the departmental enquiry the charges were found to be proved and that his services were terminated on the ground that on inspections at 11.30 AM on 14.10.1992 by the Executive Officer and Shri Zamil Ahmad, Vaccinator, it was found that the drains from the house of Sharif Chaudhary to Masjid as well as the drains in Mohalla Radhamani were not cleaned by the workman. He could not explain the negligence and his absence from duties on 9.11.1992 and 11.11.1992. He was again absent from 18.11.1992 to 20.11.1992 and was suspended on 20.11.1992. In his place Shri Chandra Pal carried out the duties from 18.11.1992 to 20.11.1992. In the enquiry the statements of the workman; Zamil Ahmad-Vaccinator and Shri Chandra Pal, Safai Naik were recorded. All the charges were proved against him. 5. The workman appeared as WW-1 and proved the contents of his written statement. It was stated by him that the suspension order was passed by Shri Ram Krishna Gupta, Head Clerk and not by the Executive Officer. Shri Ram Krishna Gupta an interested person was also appointed as Enquiry Officer. Shri Najaqat Hussain EW-1 stated that Shri Ram Krishna Gupta was appointed as enquiry officer. 6. The Labour Court found that the suspension by the Head Clerk and the enquiry by the same Head Clerk Shri Ram Krishan Gupta, who did not appear in the Labour Court to prove the enquiry report was not valid. He had no authority to either suspend the workman or to conduct the departmental enquiry. The order of the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Keeratpur terminating the services of the workman was quoted by the Labour Court in its Award. The Executive Officer in the order terminating the services of the workman did not consider the reply to the charge-sheet. He had no authority to either suspend the workman or to conduct the departmental enquiry. The order of the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Keeratpur terminating the services of the workman was quoted by the Labour Court in its Award. The Executive Officer in the order terminating the services of the workman did not consider the reply to the charge-sheet. The three line order simply reads : “You are informed that your reply given to the charge-sheet and the show cause notice served upon him is not satisfactory. You are removed from the services of Palika. Sd/- (Executive Officer), Nagar Palika, Keeratpur, Bijnor” 7. The Labour Court held that the services of the workman were not terminated on the basis of the proof of charges in the departmental enquiry, but on some other consideration. The order terminating his services was not held to be just and proper. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in his reply to the charge-sheet the workman had admitted the charges and had pleaded mercy as he was a poor man. The workman was charged for negligence of duties. He had not cleaned the drains from the house of Shareef Chaudhari to Masjid and the drains of Mohalla Radhamani. The second charge related to his absence of duties from 9.11.1992 to 11.11.1992 and that the third charge related to continuous absence from 18.11.1992 to 20.11.1992. In his reply the workman stated that he was in service for last 15 to 16 years and was at present under suspension. He was thrice suspended. He was given the notices on 14.10.1992 and 13.11.1992 for giving his reply. He does not remember whether he has given any reply to the notice. On all the three occasions, on which he was suspended he was reinstated with directions that he will carry out his duties in future but that he could not discharge his work properly as he was keeping ill. He was not ill all the time. He does not live at the address of Rajkiya Kanya Pathshala given by him. He admitted to the charges but that he is a poor man and since he had fallen ill, he could not attend to his duties. He has small children while tendering apology he prayed to be reinstated. He then stated that he would not like to adduce any evidence, and would only pray that he should be reinstated. He admitted to the charges but that he is a poor man and since he had fallen ill, he could not attend to his duties. He has small children while tendering apology he prayed to be reinstated. He then stated that he would not like to adduce any evidence, and would only pray that he should be reinstated. It is stated that on this statement dated 20.1.1993 the charges were proved and that a decision was taken after accepting the enquiry report to terminate his services. 9. Shri Manu Saxena submits that the respondent workman was suspended on four occasions for negligence in performing his duties. In the circumstances the Nagar Palika had no option but to dispense with his service and that in any case the award of full back wages was not justified as the workman had not worked, after his services were terminated on 29.1.1993 till the date of Award dated 19.8.2002. 10. The Labour Court found that the Executive Officer was the appointing authority of the workman. He did not suspend the workman nor had appointed the head clerk as Enquiry Officer. The Head Clerk on his own proceeded to suspend the workman, and conducted the enquiry. It further found that the appointing authority did not consider the facts of the case in the report. The services of workman-respondent No. 2 were terminated only on the ground that his reply was not satisfactory. Once the departmental proceedings were initiated and the enquiry report was submitted, the appointing authority was required to apply his mind to the charges; the evidence and the conclusion drawn by the enquiry officer in taking a decision to terminate before services of the employee. 11. The documents annexed to the writ petition would show that the show cause notice was given to the respondent by the enquiry officer and thereafter a charge-sheet was prepared and served upon the workman by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Keeratpur on 10.11.1992. The Head Clerk conducted the departmental enquiry in pursuance of orders passed by the Executive Officer. The enquiry officer after taking evidence had considered the reply given by the workman as well as the statement of the witnesses and concluded that the respondent workman, was earlier suspended on three occasions for negligence of duties. He was irregular in attending to his work and had admitted that he was negligent in performing his duties. The enquiry officer after taking evidence had considered the reply given by the workman as well as the statement of the witnesses and concluded that the respondent workman, was earlier suspended on three occasions for negligence of duties. He was irregular in attending to his work and had admitted that he was negligent in performing his duties. The area assigned to him was not cleaned properly. The drains were muddy and blocked. It was found that since 15.9.1983 the charged employee was suspended on four occasions and that every time he was reinstated with a warning to improve his work. He did not care much for the warnings, and continued to be negligent and was repeatedly absent from duties. The Executive Officer examined the enquiry report on the same day on 15.1.1993, and recorded his agreement with the report. The termination order however communicated to the respondent workman did not contain a recital that the Executive Officer had agreed with the report of the enquiry officer. 12. The findings of the labour Court, that the Head Clerk had suspended and initiated the enquiry proceedings on his own and that the Executive Officer without considering the enquiry report, proceeded to terminate the services of the workman treating the reply to be unsatisfactory, is based on misreading the evidence on record. The notice and the charge-sheet was served upon the respondent workman by the Executive Officer and that the enquiry was conducted by the Head Clerk in pursuance to the order of the Executive Officer dated 11.1.1993. He had served a charge-sheet to which the respondent workman replied and had accepted the charges. The respondent workman admitted that he was suspended three times in the past and did not offer any explanation or any evidence in support of his defence. In fact he had no defence at all and had simply pleaded for mercy. 13. The respondent workman was suspended in 1986; 1989 and 1992 and was reinstated with warnings. He did not produce any medical certificate or made any statement to prove that he had submitted any medical certificate to prove that he was ill. His repeated absence and the negligence to work was found to be established on record and was sufficient to terminate his services. The Executive Officer considered his reply as well as the report of the Enquiry Officer and found that no further leniency be shown. 14. His repeated absence and the negligence to work was found to be established on record and was sufficient to terminate his services. The Executive Officer considered his reply as well as the report of the Enquiry Officer and found that no further leniency be shown. 14. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are not found to be based on the perusal of the record and the statements of the witnesses. The findings are as such vitiated on misreading of records and are set aside. The conduct of the workman, and his repeated negligence in performing duties and the habit of remaining absent without any justification do not entitle him any consideration on equity either. 15. The writ petition is allowed. The Award of the Labour Court, U.P at Rampur dated 19.8.2002 in Adjudication Case No. 45 of 1994 annexed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition is set aside. The operation of the Award was stayed on 10.4.2003 and thus no consequential orders are required to be passed. ————