Desai, J. - (1.) Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., the employer through its learned counsel got this matter adjourned on numerous occasions under the pretext that an amicable settlement may be brought about between the parties. In order not to impose a court's solution we acceded to. the request. This exercise has proved fruitless but it has hardly any impact on the outcome of the case.
(2.) Appellant-Anil Kumar s/o Shri Saldip Lal Mohan was employed, according to him, as Turner Grade 1, though all throughout he was paid wages as Turner Grade II. His service was terminated on June 1, 1970 on the report of an Enquiry Officer who had framed the following two charges against him: "(i) You were given the work of rethreading of spray pipe on 4-3-70, and the jobs of the repairs of three glanda were entrusted to you on 6-3-70. You neglected your duty and did not execute the above jobs for several days. The delay in the repairs put the factory to a considerable loss. (ii) You wilfully refused the lawful orders of the Assistant Engineer to make 6 Nos. Valves for Centrifugal Machine as per sample on 18-3-1970 and left the place of work thrice in the first half of 18-3-70. This is a serious case of misconduct, negligence of duty and indiscipline." The Enquiry Officer submitted his report. This report is produced at Ann. P-10. First paragraph sets out the charges. Then the dates on which the enquiry was held have been set out. Follows the names of witnesses produced on behalf of the management. Then follows a statement that evidence of the appellant and his witnesses were recorded. After that the report concludes as under: "His non-obeying of the instructions of his seniors and leaving the place of work without proper permission is a serious case of misconduct, negligence of duty and indiscipline." There is a forwarding note at the foot of it. This is all the enquiry report. It is this report in a quasi-judicial enquiry which has been accepted by the High Court as full and proper enquiry with full application of mind and a conclusion arrived at on judicious appraisal of evidence. The General Manager who accepted the report could not have been more vague than one could have been.
(3.) On an industrial dispute being raised, the Government of Punjab referred the dispute to the Labour Court; Jullundar City. The reference was: "Whether the termination of service of Anil Kumar Mohan workman is justified and in order If not, to what relief exact amount of compensation is he entitled." The Labour Court held that on a perusal of the entire record of enquiry produced by the management, a full opportunity appears to have been given to the appellant to participate in the enquiry and produce his evidence. This according to the Labour Court was sufficient to negative the claim. The Labour Court put Sec. 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act out of "the way by observing that it was introduced in the Act on Dec. 17, 1971 while the service of the appellant was terminated on June 19, 1970 and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of Sec. 11A. Accordingly, the Labour Court made an award saying that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.;