Ram Parkash vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jullundur and another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court dated November 4, 1978, copy Annexure P.5, whereby, by invoking the provisions of section (sic) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter called the Act), it was held that the impugned termination of the services of the petitioners was not justified and in order and that in order to meet the ends of justice, the management was directed to pay a reasonable compensation to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,500/-was allowed on that score. It was further made clear that no other claim shall be made by the parties against each other thereafter as the aforesaid amount was enough to cover the benefit of retrenchment compensation and gratuity admissible to a retrenched employee with seven years'' service u/s 25-F of the Act and section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

The workwan had been in the employment of the respondent concern since April 14, 1966. He was dismissed from service with effect from January 2, 1973 on the basis of a report made by the enquiry officer Shri M.R. Mittal, indicting him of wilful absence from duty with effect from November 25, 1972. A domestic enquiry was held in which he was found guilty and as a result, he was dismissed from service. He alleged that he had been victimised by the management because of his trade union activities. He also contended that the Welfare Officer of the respondent concerned had received his leave application and had allowed him to proceed on leave and that when he reported for duty after the expiry of the leave, the management refused to take him back. Thus, he claimed reinstatement with back wages. The management defended the enquiry and the impugned indictment and pleaded that the concerned workman had been rightly dismissed from service because of his aforesaid misconduct vide clause 14(3)(e) of the Certified Standing Orders governing the respondent establishment.

Earlier vide order dated January 4, 1979, the Labour Court found that the enquiry held against the workman was fair and proper and that the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer were also not baseless or perverse. These findings were given on the first two issues out of the four issued framed earlier, which read:-

Whether the reference is bad in law? Effect?

Whether there was fair and proper enquiry into the charges levelled against the workman concerned?

Having decided these two issues, the parties were directed to lead evidence on the third issue, namely:-

Whether the termination of his services by the respondent was justified and in order?

The Labour Court itself invoking the provisions of section 11-A of the Act, found that the management should not have terminated his services by way of dismissal and without any compensation for his previous service and, therefore, allowed a sum of Rs. 1, 500/-on that score.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that vide order dated January 4, 1979, it was wrongly held that the enquiry held against the workman was fair and proper. According to the learned counsel, the whole approach of the Labour Court in this behalf was wrong and, therefore, the finding arrived at was vitiated. He further contended that having found that the management should not have terminated the services of the workman without any compensation for his previous service, the amount of Rs. 1,500/- awarded on that score was too meager. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent management submitted that no second show cause notice was necessary and therefore, the enquiry was rightly held to be fair and proper. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upen Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v T.C. Srivatsava (1984) II L.L.J. 105(.

and Notified Area Committee v. Mahavir Parshad (1984) L.I.C. 464. The learned counsel further submitted that once the provisions of section 11-A were invoked by the Labour Court itself, then this Court will not interfere in the judicial discretion exercised by the labour law Court. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon the Management of Panitole Tea Estate v. Workmen (1971) L.L.J. 233

4 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this writ petition.

The Labour Court itself exercised its judicial discretion by invoking the provisions of section 11-A of the Act and found that the workman was entitled to the reasonable compensation in lieu of reinstatement and, thus, allowed a sum of Rs. 1,500/- on that score Thus, under the circumstances, I do not find any justification to interfere with the judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court at this stage.

Consequently, this writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.