- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of the Labour Court, Meerut dated 25-6- 1983 Annexure-10 to the writ petition.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel, for the par ties. The respondent No. 2 was employed in the petitioner' factory at Rishikesh, Dehradun from 7-11-1968. According to the case of the petitioner during the relevant period in 1974 the employers came to know that various antibiotic capsules and other medicines produced in the petitioner's plant were being stolen. Hence searches were made at the gate. On 20-6-1974 at about 1 P. M. the respondent No. 2 while going out during lunch period was searched in the routine manner at the gate. During this search five or six capsules of tetracycline fell down on the floor out of the underwear of the respondent No. 2. It is alleged that when she resumed her under wear her manner of walking aroused some suspicion and she was again subjected to a though search and a polythene bag contain ing 99 capsules of tetracycline was detected and recovered out of her underwear. The respondent No. 2 tendered her apology orally before the Security Officer for the theft committed by her and wept before himand requested to be excused. The Chief Security Officer expressed his inability to excuse her and told her to contact the Departmental Head in this connection. Finding that she was not being excused she gave a statement that only two capsules were recovered from her possession and not 99. The Chief Security Officer sent his report to the Management giving details about the incident and the Management on receipt of. the report of the Chief Security Officer issued a charge sheet dated 29-6-1971 and suspended the workman con cerned pending enquiry. The workman submitted her ex planation dated 22-7-1974 but the Manage ment found the explanation to be not satis factory and instituted a domestic enquiry.
(3.) 1n this domestic enquiry it is alleged that the respondent No. 2 was given full opportunity of hearing and there after the Enquiry Officer found the workman to be guilty and on his report the service of the respondent No. 2 was terminated vide order dated 28-11-1974. An industrial dispute was raised by the respondent No. 2 and it was referred to the Labour Court which has given the impugned award dated 25-6-1983. Hence this petition. The Labour Court framed certain preliminary issues and decided those issues in favour of the employer vide order dated 27-8- 1976, Annexure 6 to the petition. In this order, the Labour Court has held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and the respondents No. 2 was given full opportunity of hearing. The Labour Court also held that the findings of the enquiry Officer were not perverse.;