D.S.Sinha - (1.) BY means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, the petitioner, an erstwhile workman of M/s. Elgin Mills Co. Ltd. Mill No. 2, CooperganJ, Kanpur, the, respondent no. 2, seeks to challenge the award dated 25th January. 1988, rendered by the Labour Court III, Kanpur the respondent no. 1, in adjudication case No. 48 of 1985.
(2.) THE facts of the case, as pleaded, are that the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 9th February, 1983 which was followed by a departmental inquiry. In the departmental Inquiry the misconduct of the petitioner was held to be proved. Consequent upon the findings of the departmental inquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service by means of an order dated 19th March, 1982. This gave rise to art industrial dispute leading to a reference under section 4-K of the U. P? (industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act. The Labour Court III, Kanpur, the respondeat no. 1, after thoroughly investigating the respective case set up by the parties, came to the conclusion that the inquiry was fair and proper. However, It found that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner was severe and the proper punishment should be termination with the benefits annexed thereto The dismissal of the petitioner wis, therefore, directed to be understood to have been converted into one of termination entitling him for benefits of termination. The petitioner is not satisfied with the award. Hence this petition. Heard Sri K. P. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Sri V. B. Singh Advocate, representing the employer- respondent.
(3.) SHRI Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, neither assails the finding of the Labour Court with regard to the fairness and propriety of the domestic requiry nor does he challenge the power of the Labour Court to enter the question of quantum of punishment and to award lesser punishment. Whet is agitated by SHRI Agarwal is the ineffectiveness of the relief of conversion of dismissal into termination of the services of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the relief granted by the Labour Court is illusory and if it bad properly reassessed and reappraised the evidence before it. which it was obliged to do In view of the provisions of section 6 (2-A) of the Act, the petitioner might haves been granted more effective relief. Sri Singh learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2, counters the submissions of Sri Agarwal by submitting that the relief granted by the Labour Court to the petitioner was not illusory and that the discretion of conversion of the order of dismissal into one of termination of service of the petitioner was properly exercised. It does not warrant any interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;