Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Ester India Employees Union' on 16 April, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPMS No. 1074 of 2025
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Imran Ali Khan and Mr. Harsh Vardhan
Dhanik, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and
order passed by the Presiding Officer Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court, Haldwani, in Adjudication
Case No. 66 of 2003 'M/S Ester Industries Limited vs.
Ester India Employees Union'.
3. In addition to this, the petitioner is also praying
for reinstatement in service. The reference which was
adjudicated by the Labour Court as follows:
"D;k lsok;ktdksa }kjk ifjf"k'V esa mfYyf[kr vius vkB deZpkfj;ksa
dks fnukad 18-04-1971 ls lsok ls i`Fkd@oafpr fd;k tkuk mfpr
rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS] ;fn ugha rks D;k deZpkfj;ksa dks lsok esa
fd;k tkuk vHkh'B gS ;k vU; dksbZ ykHk fn;k tkuk vHkh'B gS\"
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the chargesheet was given to the petitioner on the date
when he was placed under suspension i.e. on
14.04.1990 and submits that in the disciplinary
proceeding in reference to the charges neither any
opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce their
evidence nor any witness in support of the charge were
produced and in a cursory and mechanical manner the
disciplinary proceedings was concluded and thereafter
services of the petitioner was dispensed with.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that not only this as it appears from the
reference the petitioner was treated to be terminated
w.e.f. 18.04.1971, which infact is the date of induction of
the petitioner in service. He submits that the date i.e.
18.04.1971, which was treated to be the date of
termination of the petitioner, cannot sustain since the
chargesheet was furnished to the petitioner in the year
1990 itself.
6. He submits that this important aspect of the
matter was completely overlooked by the Labour Court
while rejecting claim.
7. I found force on submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, firstly on the ground that the
chargesheet was apparently served to the petitioner on
14.04.1990 and therefore once the chargesheet has been
furnished then each of the charge has to be established
by giving full opportunity to the petitioner to adduce
evidence.
8. It appears that neither any opportunity was
given nor any opportunity was given to adduce the
evidence and not only this even in the disciplinary
proceeding not a single witness has been produced in
support of the charge.
9. Prima-facie the reference, which was adjudicated
by the Labour Court is not appears to be sustainable
particularly when the chargesheet was issued to the
petitioner in the year 1990 and petitioner has been
treated to be dismissed from 18.04.1971.
10. Issue notice to the respondent no. 2.
11. Steps within a week.
12. Let the respondent may file their counter
affidavit within three weeks.
13. One week thereafter is granted to the learned
counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.
14. List this matter on 20.05.2025.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
16.04.2025
PR
