(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the Awards Part I and Part II dated August 17, 1994 and December 19, 1994 respectively passed by the 3rd Labour Court, Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 161 of 1987 a proceeding under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(2.) THE petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing heavy engineering items. The 1st respondent was employed as watchman in the petitioner's company sometime in 1966. On December 13, 1984 the then Managing Director of the company while taking a round found that the 1st respondent had deserted his plant (sic) and was chitchatting with his colleagues at some other plant. On the next day the 1st respondent gave a written apology admitting the mistake and assuring that he would not commit such mistake in future and requested that he may be given one more chance. The 1st respondent was charge-sheeted for the above misconduct. During the enquiry the 1st respondent retracted his confession and claimed that the apology was given under coercion. The enquiry officer gave his report holding the 1st respondent guilty of misconduct. Consequently by letter dated May 6, 1986 the workman was dismissed from service.
(3.) THE workman raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement which resulted in a Reference (IDA) No. 161 of 1987 to the 3rd Labour Court at Bombay. By Part I award dated August 17, 1994 the Labour Court held that the enquiry was not fair and proper. It seems that no evidence was led by the company after the award Part I was made although opportunity was given to adduce evidence to establish the misconduct. By award Part II dated December 14, 1994 the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workman with full back wages.