Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This petition has been filed by the workman challenging the award dated 13.1.1999 passed by the Labour Court, Agra, in Adjudication No. 234/1997, which was published on the notice board on 25.8.1999.
By the impugned award the reference has been decided by the labour court against the workman holding that the order of reference was bad and that his services have been terminated and for an unsatisfactory work by the employer for loosing confidence upon him.
3. The facts of the case are that the workman was engaged as Pathology Lab Assistant in Nauyhil Integrated Rural Project for Health and Development (hereinafter referred to as NIRPHAD) on 16.5.1979. It is claimed by the workman that his service were orally terminated with effect from 29.5.1995 pursuant to letter dated 27.5.1995 issued by the employer. A show-cause notice dated 26.7.1995 was issued to him directing him to be present at the Headquarters on 29.7.1995. It is alleged that before disengaging him from service, neither retrenchment compensation nor notice, pay was given to him by the employer and that the action of termination of service by the employer in the circumstances was illegal and in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
4. The workman raised an Industrial dispute, which was registered as C.P. case No. 44/95. As conciliation proceeding between the parties failed the following reference was made to Labour Court, U.P. Agra for adjudication where it was registered as adjudication case No. 234/1997.
The reference is as under:
D;k lsok;kstdks }kjk vius Jfed dju flag iq= Jh ek/kksflag in iSFkksyksth ysc VSDuhf'k;u dh lsok,a fnu 29-7-95 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk @ vFkok oS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk @ vuqrks'k fjyhQ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk fdl vU; fooj.k lfgr
The case of the employer before the Labour Court was that NIRPHAD is a social project having its local Head Officer at Bajna. The project workers on the donation and its object is to serve socio economically backward people in the villages by organising operation Campus for eyes and provide free medical treatment to them. For this purpose the help and local engagement of the people living in nearby areas is taken. These projects which are organised in the villages from time to time are temporary and after the work is over the local engagement is done away with.
5. It was further case of the employer that the petitioner was working as Lab Technicians. He was required to submit proper pathology report of the patients, who came to the camps for treatment ; that lastly the petitioner was not showing any interest in his work and many a times submitted wrong and incorrect pathology reports, which hampered the treatment and as such some of the patients, who did not get response for the treatment and faced danger of loosing their eye site complained to the doctors.
6. Since the petitioner was working against the interest of the project and as a result faith of patient in the project eroded the doctors in turn made complaints against the workman. Not only this it was also found that expensive medicines meant for the patients were being stolen by the petitioner. He was also given warning on aforesaid charges in writing on 5.1.1994, 8.2.1995 and 11.3.1995 etc but the workman neither disputed the complaints nor replied to the charges. He also did not improve his working. The services of the petitioner were dispensed with on 27.7.1995 for all the aforesaid reasons. It is urged by the counsel for the respondent that when the order of termination was served upon the petitioner, he refused to accept notice and retrenchment compensation etc alongwith letter of termination as such it was sent to him alongwith full details of the payments by two cheques amounting to Rs. 23395/-, which had been offered to him before termination of service under registered letter dated 10.3.1996.
7. The Labour Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record found that the employer had proved their case held that petitioner has been disengaged on 27.7.1995 and not on 29.7.1995 as claimed by the workman and referred under the order of reference. A find of fact was also recorded that case. The payment of notice pay retrench was offered by the employer to the petitioner/workman by two cheques, which was refused by the petitioner.
8. It appears from the record that the petitioner has not filed his appointment letter and had relied upon certain experience certificate issued by the NIRPHAD Groth Centre, Bajna to prove his employment. Whether the petitioner was employed in the project or was a permanent employee of the NIRPHAD Society, could only have been proved by the appointment letter which he never filed. It further appears from annexure No. 2 to the writ petition that report of misbehaviour and indiscipline were received by the employer from which it was established before the labour court that the petitioner was seriously disrupting the programme of project/programmes of NIRPHAD. He had been worked by the employers that if he does not mend his conduct the administration would seriously consider the closing of the Bajna Programme or in the alternate dismissing him from service. Letter dated 27.7.1999 appended as annexure No. 3 to the writ petition shows that petitioner had earlier also been suspended for misconduct but it was withdrawn on his promise of work in the community and maintaining of good behaviours.
9. It is averred in aforesaid letter dated 27.7.1995 that it was crucial time for survival of the project and in this view of the serious situation service of the petitioner are being terminated and that he should hand over equipment to Dr. Bhupendra. It also appears from the record in written statement filed before the labour court that he was an employee of the Niphard at Bajna in the project programme and not of the society. It also appears from the written statement of the employer that the petitioner was working as project duration employee and his services were terminated for misconducts which was necessary for the survival of the project/programme at Bajna.
10. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish before the labour court that he was a permanent employee of the society. The respondents have lost confidence in the petitioner. The findings of facts recorded by the labour court are based on evidence. For the purpose of compliance Section 6-N is sufficient that the employer offered payment of retrenchment compensation etc. the payment refused by the workman would not rendered and offered is refused and in that circumstances will not rendered the termination as illegal for non compliance of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Even otherwise the service of the petitioner having been terminated for misconduct and the labour court having recorded a concrete finding of fact that his termination being for loss of confidence does require any interference particularly when he was instrumental in disrupting the project/program for socio economically backward and weaker sections of the society. By his actions the reputation of the society was suffering at the hands of the petitioner as he was not giving the pathology reports of the patients correctly and stealing expensive medicines. The Labour Court has rightly not shown any leniency in the matter by taking the conduct of the petitioner into consideration.
11. No perversity or illegality shown by the petitioner in the impugned award. This Court is not inclined in the impugned award for all the aforesaid reason. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.