BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRIES LTD Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(UTN)-2001-8-2
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on August 06,2001

BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.C.VERMA, J. - (1.)The two writ petitions are related to each other in which two Awards made by the Labour Court in respect of the same employeerespondent No. 3 have been challenged. Award dated February 28, 1995 has been challenged in the Writ Petition No. 31224 of 1995, whereas it is the Award dated August 31, 1995 which is under challenge in the second writ petition.
(2.)The relevant facts may be set forth. The petitioners (BHEL) is an undertaking of the Government of India engaged in the production of heavy electrical equipments. The respondent No. 3 Teekam Singh Verma was initially appointed as Apprentice Turner on February 28, 1970 on completion of apprenticeship training, he was appointed on the post of Trademan, Grade IV-Turner, w.e.f. February 10, 1971 and was promoted as Trademan Grade III w.e.f. July 3, 1974. He allegedly committed theft of bronze weighing about 23 kgs. of the company on May 9, 1979 and was caught red-handed by the Security Staff. An F.I.R. under Section 379/411 I.P.C. was lodged against him and in consequence of it, he was criminally prosecuted. Departmental action was also taken against him as per the standing orders duly certified under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. He was placed under suspension and charge-sheeted on May 12, 1979. Another charge-sheet was later on served on him for absence from duty without permission. Ultimately, after departmental inquiry he was dismissed from service on January 31, 1980. The respondent No. 3 filed an appeal dated February 12, 1980 before departmental appellate authority. During the pendency of such appeal, he also filed a mercy appeal on March 19, 1980 for being excused of his misconduct and for being given a chance to serve on temporary or permanent basis. Taking a sympathetic and humanitarian approach, the petitioner allowed the mercy appeal and appointed the respondent No. 3 back in employment afresh as temporary Turner under Temporary Labour Authorisation w. e.f. May 20, 1980.
(3.)However, the temporary employment of the respondent No. 3 was also discontinued w.e.f. February 14, 1981 on the ground of negligence and his request for re-appointment was declined. He raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 8 of 1983 before the Labour Court. Reference was made by State Government on December 30, 1982. By Award dated May 19, 1987, the termination of the respondent No. 3 was treated to be unjustified and he was directed to be reinstated. Accordingly, he was re-instated as temporary Turner.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.