(1.) RULE, by consent of counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent waives service. By consent of counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.
(2.) THESE proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted in order to challenge an award of the Labour Court in a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The labour Court has held that the two chargesheeted workmen had committed serious misconduct upon which an order of dismissal from service could not be regarded as harsh or disproportionate. The Labour Court was of the view that the workmen were consequently not entitled to an order of reinstatement with full back wages. Having held thus, the Labour Court has awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to one of the two workmen, (A. S. Borade), and Rs. 3 lakhs to the other (V. B. Sawant ). The correctness of this order is challenged by the employer.
(3.) THE two workmen to whom the present dispute relates, were chargesheeted in a disciplinary enquiry of January 19, 1991. The allegation was that on August 22, 1990 and september 14, 1990, the workmen had unauthorisedly left their place of work, resorted to an illegal and unjustified stoppage of work and that they participated in a gherao of the managing Director and the General Manager, incharge of production. In respect of the second event, it is alleged that the workmen instigated the others to proceed on an illegal strike. The workmen participated in the enquiry. The enquiry Officer held that the charge of proceeding on an illegal strike and of riotous an9 disorderly behaviour on the premises of the establishment was proved, as well as the charge of the commission of an act subversive of discipline. An order of dismissal was passed. Upon a reference to adjudication, the Labour court initially held that the enquiry was fair and proper, but came to the conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse.