TARUN AGARWALA,J - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement with back wages. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is, that the workman was working in a permanent capacity as a clerk and was charge sheeted for forging the signatures of the Head of the Department which enabled the workman to go outside the factory premises and was also charge sheeted for forging the signatures of the Head of the Department in the attendance register. The workman was also charge-sheeted for raising a bill for overtime payment by again forging the signatures of the Head of the Department. A domestic inquiry was conducted in which the workman was found guilty and, on the basis of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority terminated the services of the workman. The workman being aggrieved by the termination of the service raised an Industrial Dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.
(2.) THE Labour Court, after considering the material evidence on the record, held that the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper and that, the inquiry was held in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court, however, allowed the employers to lead fresh evidence. On the basis of fresh evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court held that the State Government had the power to refer the industrial dispute and that the Central Government was not the appropriate Government to refer the dispute. The Labour Court also found that the charges levelled against the workman was not proved and that the disputed signatures should have been examined by an expert. The Labour Court found that the workman could not be said to have forged the signatures of the Head of the Department and that there was no evidence to indicate that the disputed signatures was in the handwriting of the workman. The Labour Court also concluded that the plea of loss of evidence raised by the employer was only an afterthought and that since the workman was not gainfully employed and no evidence was led by the employers to rebut this allegation, the Labour Court accordingly directed reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back wages. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said award, has filed the present writ petition. At the time when the writ petition was entertained, an interim order was passed directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman and had stayed the payment of back wages. Pursuant to the interim order, the workman was reinstated and continued in service and, during the pendency of the writ petition, the workman retired and has also died and his heirs have now been substituted. Consequently, the only question which remains to be considered in the present writ petition is with regard to payment of back wages. This Court had directed the parties to conciliate in the matter but each party refused to budge from their stand. The petitioner offered a sum of Rs.50,000/- in full and final settlement which was refused by the learned counsel for the workman. Consequently, the matter is being heard on merits.
(3.) HEARD Sri S.D.Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Sri Diptiman Singh, Advocate and Sri K.P.Agarwal, the learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Ms. Sumati Rani Gupta for the workman respondents.;