- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of the Labour Court, Allahabad dated 25- 6-87, Annexure 1 to the petition. The facts of the case are that there was a meeting between the management of the petitioner company and the repre sentatives of the workmen association regarding pay scales and while discussions were going oh in the meeting on 22-4-82 the respondent No. 3 got enraged, left his seat and caught hold of the collar of Sri V Krish nan, Managing Director of the Company and dragged him from his chair. He also physically assaulted him and hurled abusive languages at him. On intervention of other officers present there the respondent No. 3 was prevented from committing any further assault on the Managing Director. There upon the respondent No. 3 more agitated and he went to the door of the Board Room where a large number of employees had assembled already shouting slogans. Respondent No. 3 instigated them to prevent the Managing Director and other officers from leaving the Board Room and kept them under confinement (gherao) un less the demands were fulfilled. In this man ner the respondent No. 3 kept them under Gherao till about 4. 45 P. M. when the police-came and rescued them.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 was char-gesheeted on 22-4-1984 for the above mis conduct and he was placed under suspen sion. A true copy of the chargesheet is An nexure 2 to the writ petition. On 30-4-84 the T. S. L. Executives Association passed a resolution in a general body meeting and expressed their regret on the incident on 22-4- 84 and they forwarded a copy of the resolution to the Company/petitioner by their letter dated 30-4-84, vide Annexure 3 to the petition. Again on 1-5-84 the said Association wrote a letter to the petitioner company stating that they unconditionally condemned the said incident of 22-4- 84 in which respondent No. 3 was involved and the Association apologised for the said incident. A true copy of the letter dated 1-5-84 is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Respon dent No. 3 submitted his explanation by letter dated 15-5-1984 to the charge-sheet and si nply denied the charges without men tioning any thing. A true copy of the ex planation dated 15-5-84 is annexed as An nexure 6 to the writ petition. In this letter respondent No. 3 denied the charge against him. The explanation of respondent No. 3 was not found satisfactory and as such a domestic enquiry was ordered to be held. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 31-12-84 holding that the respondent No. 3 was guilty of the charges levelled against him. A true copy of the enquiry report dated 31-12-84 is Annexure 8 to the petition. The said report shows that respon dent No. 3 was guilty of charge No. 1 in the chargesheet which is misbehaviour with and assaulting the Managing Director. Subsequent to the enquiry, the respondent No. 3 was dismissed by the dismissal order dated 14-6-85, Annexure 9 to the petition. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred under Section 4-A of the U. P. In dustrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court, Allahabad. The parties filed written state ments and rejoinder statements before the Labour Court vide Annexure 11 to 14 to the writ petition. By means of its award dated 25-6-87 the Labour Court held that the respondent No. 3 had misbehaved with the Managing Director but since the Executive Associa tion had apologised the respondent No. 3 should be reinstated in service but he will not get back salary from the date of dismiss al to the date of reinstatement and he will not be given any increment. Aggrieved this writ petition has been filed in this Court.;