TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Social Welfare Department were selected as line-helpers in the appellant Board. On coming to know that the said recommendation was allegedly made fraudulently the respondent was dismissed from service by a letter dated 26.9.2000. Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal the respondent herein filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices under Items 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act before the I Labour Court, Pune, in Com.ULP No.145/99. The Labour Court framed the following 3 issues : i) Does the respondent prove that the misconduct alleged against the complainant is proved on the basis of evidence before the Court ? ii) Whether the complainant proves that the respondent has ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatement. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Anr. vs. Girdharilal Yadav (2004 6 SCC 325), Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi Ors. (2003 8 SCC 319) and Secretary, A.P. SWRE I Society vs. J.Prathap Ors. (2002 10 SCC 430) to contend that misrepresentation by itself would amount to fraud therefore an appointment based on misrepresentation gets vitiated because of such fraud. On the contrary Mr. M.D. Adkar, contended that the act of the appellant in terminating the services of the respondent clearly amounted to unfair labour practice as contemplated under the MRTU PULP Act, 1971. He submitted though the Labour Court erroneously rejected the complaint of the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the conclusion that the alleged misrepresentation which is now said to be a fraud was not specifically pleaded or proved. In the show cause notice no basis was laid to show what is the nature of fraud that was being attributed to the appellant. No particulars of the alleged fraud were given and the said pleadings did not even contain any allegation as to how the appellant was responsible for sending the so called fraudulent proposal or what role he had to play in such proposal being sent. It also noticed from the evidence of Mr. Waghmare, Social Welfare Officer who sent the proposal before the Labour Court that he did not utter a single word as to whether the said supplementary list was ever called for by the Department concerned or no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
