and then depending upon the outcome of the enquiry, appropriate orders should have been passed.
Before the Labour Court, the stand of the appellant University in the written statement was two fold.
The appellant is the Kurukshetra University hereinafter referred to as the University .
This led the State to make the industrial reference to the Labour Court, Ambala under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as ID Act for deciding the legality and companyrectness of the respondents termination from the services of the appellant University w.e.f.
Notice of the SLP was sent to the respondent.
No.25 of 2003.
By impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appellants writ petition and upheld the Award passed by the Labour Court.
Against this judgment of the High Court, the appellant University felt aggrieved and has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
The appellant University , felt aggrieved of the award of the Labour Court, filed writ petition before the High Court.
30.03.2000.
The appellant accordingly decided to discontinue the services of the respondent and treating him to be the daily rated worker dispensed with his services with effect from 30.03.2000.
The Labour Court, by award dated 23.01.2006, answered the reference in respondents favour.
The Enquiry Officer, in his report dated 20.09.1999, found the respondent guilty for companymitting the misconduct.
It was held that the enquiry held by the appellant was number legal and proper.
But the management should avail itself of the said opportunity by making a suitable request to the Tribunal before the proceedings are closed.
The Labour Court granted liberty to the appellant to hold regular departmental enquiry for the charges leveled by them against the respondent, in case the appellant so desires.
First, the respondent was working as a daily wager for a period of 89 days and, therefore, he was number entitled to claim any benefit available to any workman under the ID Act and Second, the respondent companymitted misconduct while on duty for which a departmental enquiry was held though it was number required because the respondent was a daily rated employee and on being found guilty in the domestic inquiry, his services were dispensed with.
The appellant took numbere of the incident and held departmental enquiry by appointing Enquiry Officer to probe into the incident.
The respondent was working as Security Guard in the University as daily rated employee.
On 18.08.1999, the respondent while on duty alleged to have misbehaved with one lady Research Scholar, who was working in the University.
With these findings, the Labour Court held this to be a case of illegal retrenchment and set aside the respondents termination order as being illegal.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 22.09.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.13094 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein and affirmed the Award dated 23.01.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Signature Not Verified Labour Court, Ambala in Ref.
