ELIZABETH JEAN MARSH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE management of Christian Hospital for women and Children, Berhampur, has filed this writ application challenging the award dated july 29, 1993, passed by the Presiding Officer, labour Court, Jeypore in I. D. Case No. 64/1991, modifying the punishment of dismissal from the service of the workmen, opposite parties 2 and 3 and awarding lesser punishment, like stoppage of annual increment and directing reinstatement without back wages.

(2.) THE workmen, opposite parties 2 and 3, having been dismissed from service by the petitioner-management, raised industrial dispute, which was taken up for conciliation and the same having ended in failure, the State government in the Labour and Employment department referred the dispute to the Labour court, Jeypore, for adjudication. The terms of the dispute were as follows:

(3.) THE case of the workmen before the labour Court was that Sri Murali Dakua and Sri s. B. Amarnath, opposite parties 2 and 3 were working as driver and watcher, respectively, under the management and their services was permanent in nature. They have been dismissed from service by the management with effect from May 12, 1990, without any rhyme or reason and no domestic enquiry has been conducted and adequate opportunity has not been given to them to prove their innocence. Therefore, the action of the management was vindictive. The further case of the workmen was that although good number of persons were working under the management, there was no workers Union in the establishment and the two workmen, opposite parties 2 and 3, took initiatives and created a Union of the employees. Sri Dakua, opposite party No. 2, became the General Secretary and Sri amarnath, opposite party No. 3, became the joint Secretary of the said Union. They raised certain legal demands before the management, on behalf of the employees, for which, the management became aggrieved and ultimately both the workmen have been illegally dismissed from service. The workmen further claimed that they have not been issued with any charge sheet or show cause notice to explain their conduct and no opportunity has been given to them to defend themselves in the domestic enquiry, which was conducted ex parte and behind their back. It was their further case that they were not served with copy of the enquiry report prior to their dismissal from service and no prior notice or any notice pay or compensation have been paid to them, before termination of their services. Accordingly, it was pleaded by the workmen that the action of the management in dismissing them from service with effect from may 12, 1990 was not legal and justified and they were entitled to reinstatement in service, with full back wages.