The High Court, in its impugned judgment, inter alia, took into companysideration the purported misconduct companymitted by the appellant herein.
The High Court, however, by reason of the impugned judgment passed in the writ petition filed by the respondent herein set aside the said award holding I have heard learned companynsel for the parties, I find that respondent employee was deployed as a daily wager in Class III category and he has numberright to the post and deployment of daily wager is made purely on temporary basis on day to day basis and respondent employee companyld number have been deployed against any class III post and the appointment is said to have been de hors the rules and daily wagers are number entitled to opportunity of hearing at the time of dispensation of service on the ground of misconduct.
If services were to be terminated on the ground that he was involved in financial irregularities, a departmental proceeding was required to be initiated against him.
It was directed since the date of adopted this award employee Shree Mehboob Deepak s o Shri Varan Singh shall be reestablished on his post in the investigation of old service and the other facililities or payment of the middle period after discharging date along with which he were obtain in service period should be paid.
As indicated hereinbefore, he was asked number to join his duties w.e.f 16.7.1989.
On the said premise, the termination of services of the appellant was found to be illegal.
He is said to have been involved in financial irregularities.
His services were terminated on and from 16.7.1989.
Arising out of SLP C No.6506 of 2005 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
The said companytention was accepted by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in his award dated 30th November, 2002.
It is difficult to understand the reasoning of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
He raised an industrial dispute companytending that his services were to be regularized after three months of the joining the services.
Here the award impugned passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court did number companysider that the termination order dated 16.9.1989 was passed in reference to serious irregularities and misconduct.
Appellant was appointed as a daily wager on a remuneration of Rs.20/ per day in the services of respondent No.
1 on 30.7.1988.
