JUDGMENT
D.P. Singh, J.
1. Learned counsel for the respondent was granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit on 6th February, 1995, but no counter affidavit was filed and again three weeks further time was granted on 8.10.2004. Yet again by a peremptory order three weeks time was granted on 23rd. November, 2004 to file counter affidavit, but no counter affidavit has been filed till date.
2. This petition has remained pending for the last thirteen years and it does not appear appropriate to grant further time.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and M
Kirtika Singh for the respondents on merit.
4. This writ petition is directed against an award dated 13.11.1992 as published on 21st. December, 1992 by which the reference has been answered against the workman and in favour of the employers.
5. The services of fifteen workmen of M/s. Lohia Machines Limited were dispensed with by various termination orders which gave rise to corresponding number of Adjudication Cases which were registered before the Industrial Tribunal II, U.P., Lucknow. After sufficient opportunity to the parties and after exchange of pleadings, the aforesaid award has been rendered holding that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and further, on the facts of the case, the employers were justified in terminating the services of the workman without holding any domestic enquiry.
6. Briefly, the facts are that on 27th March, 1990 Ram Chandra Sahu, a workman in the establishment met with a fatal accident about three and half kilometers away from the factory premises which was used by some militant union leaders to whip up passion resulting into violence in the establishment when the work was abruptly stopped leaving the machines running. The workmen resorted to looting, arson including molestation of lady employees and beating up of the officials of the establishment The situation came to such a head that a lock-out was declared and several senior officials of the establishment resigned citing the atmosphere created by the aforesaid situation and since none of the officers were prepared to hold any enquiry against the identified workmen, their services were dispensed with without holding any enquiry but after payment of retrenchment compensation, in view of the Standing Order prevailing in the establishment. The reasons given for dispensing with the enquiry have been mentioned in the award which has been found to be justified by the Tribunal. I agree with the reasons given by the Tribunal in recording the aforesaid finding.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the workman had resorted to only a day strike and their termination without holding any domestic enquiry was not justified. He has further urged that the reasons given for dispensing with the enquiry was imaginary and no such situation existed on the date of enquiry. Clause (23) of the Standing Order gives ample power to the establishment to take action where there is reasonable apprehension that the safety and interest of the establishment is jeopardized. The reasons have been given in detail for dispensing with the enquiry and the reasons have been reiterated and fortified before the Tribunal and the conclusion is based on findings of fact. The employers had led evidence of senior officers of the establishment to prove that situation was such that immediate action was necessary but neither the atmosphere nor conditions were conducive to hold any enquiry. It was also proved that none was prepared to give evidence or conduct the enquiry as there was threat to the officers and their family. However, even though opportunity was given to the employees, they refused to lead any evidence to show that the situation was conducive to enquiry. There is nothing on record to show any malafide intention in taking action. Extra ordinary situations need unique remedies, this appears to be one of them.
8. The Tribunal after relying upon several decisions of various courts including the Apex Court has come to the conclusion that dispensation of the enquiry was justified in the facts of the case and the action taken cannot be faulted. These findings are based on evidence on record and have not been shown to be perverse.
9. For the reasons given above, I do not find this is a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.