- (1.) The award dated 5.11.1994 is the subject matter of challenging here at the instance of employer. A charger sheet had been issued against the respondent no.2 workman relating to claim of leave travel concession and upon completion of disciplinary proceeding by order dated 26.12.1975, the Respondent no.2 workman had been dismissed. The dispute having been referred to, the Labour court decided the same by the impunged award. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner employer contended that in the impugned award there is no finding as to whether the enquiry was fair and proper although an issue to the said effect had been raised as additional issue no.3.
(2.) Further contention of the learned councel for the petitioner was that the award had been given in favour of the workman solely on the ground that the charges levelled did not come within the provision of clause c of paragraph 20 of the standing Orders and therefore the order of dismissal had been quashed with consequential direction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in view of the charges levelled, the question of loss of confidence of the employer was there and an additional issue no.4 was therfore raised. But the labour Court did notdecide the said charge and reinstatement had been granted without even deciding the same. In this connection it was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that even if the question of compensation comes up instead of reinstatement the aggregate of the amounts paid for a long period by the petitioner employer to the respondent workman month by month in terms of the interim order granted is sufficient amount towards compensation and the workman concerned remains entitled to no further amount towards compensation.
(3.) Learned councel for the workman contended that even if enquiry is fair and proper, the labour Court can interfere with the quantum of punishment and in support of such contention reference was made to the case of workman of M/s Fire Stone Tyre Rubber Company of India Private Limited Vs. management and other reported in AIR 1973 SC 1227 and the case of Scooter India Limited Vs. labour Court reported in AIR 1989 SC 149. With regard to the contention relating to charge levelled and the provision of paragraph 20 of standing Orders it has been contended on behalf of workman that as the charge levelled was governed by the said provision of Standing Counsel Order, the said award cannot be interferred with. It has been further contended that submission of claim for travel concessiondid not touch the business of employer as it did not relate to any transaction of the employer with its customer or any third party and therfore the said provision of paragraphno.20 of the Standing order did not apply. The law decided in the case of Co-operative Central Bank Limited Vs. Additional Industrial Tribunal reported in AIR 1970 SC 245 was referred to.;