S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel for employer respondent No. 1 has filed counter -affidavit which is taken on record. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner -workman and learned Counsel for employer -respondent No. 1. This writ petition is directed against award dated 3.6.1998 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court U.P., Varanasi in Adjudication Case No. 76 of 1990 a reference made under section 4 -K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and Misc. Case No. 37 of 1989 under section 6 -E(2) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. It is not at all understandable as to why the impugned award dated 3.6.1998 was published on 2.2.2006/16.2.2006 i.e. after about eight years.
(2.) THE matter which was referred to the Labour Court was as to whether action of employer -respondent No. 1 terminating the services of its workman -petitioner with effect from 10.11.1989 was just and valid or not. Through interim order dated 13.4.1998 Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry against the petitioner was fair (services of the petitioner had been terminated after domestic inquiry). Petitioner was employed on the post of pourer in the pouring area. It is stated that the temperature of the room where pouring of molten aluminium takes place is around 100 degree centigrade. The specific charge was that on 9.9.1989 while on duty petitioner was pouring molten aluminium in such manner that some liquid was over flowing and the entire molten metal was not being poured in skimming disc. At about 10.30 when Senior Vice President alongwith Production Manager and Superintendent came on routine inspection, they found that some metal was over flowing and on being inquired about that the workman became excited started talking in loud voice and used objectionable words and stated that for the inspecting team it was not possible even to pour one bucket of molten aluminium in such manner that no part of the aluminium over flowed. The Senior Vice Chairman and - Production Manager etc. admonished him for talking loudly. Thereupon the workman asked them that they should not threaten him and they could do whatever they wanted. Thereafter he left his working place.
(3.) IN the award it is also mentioned that earlier also some warnings had been issued to the workman and on some earlier occasions he was suspended for few days. It is not mentioned any where that how much was the estimated quantity of the molten aluminium which over flowed and did not reach the appropriate place. Over flowing a very small amount of molten aluminium and giving of reply in loud voice in a room where temperature is about 100 degree centigrade cannot be said to be a misconduct warranting termination. There was no allegation that the workman abused his seniors.;