- (1.) THIS Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an Award of the labour Court, Sangli, dated December 1, 1988, made in Reference (IDA) No. 128 of 1989 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).
(2.) THE Petitioner is the Transport Manager of the bus transport undertaking controlled by the kolhapur Municipal Corporation. The First Respondent was working as a Conductor in its service. From July 14, 1980 to June 30, 1984, the First Respondent remained absent from work, though his name was continued in the muster roll of the Petitioner. From July 1, 1984, the petitioner struck the name of the First Respondent off the roll, by imputing an intention to abandon service to him, on account of his long absence from service. It is the case of the petitioner that the First Respondent had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 4,480/- belonging to the Petitioner and that, when this was discovered, he remained absent from duty continuously, fearing disciplinary action. It is not disputed that the Petitioner, though it claimed that there was criminal breach of trust on the part of the First Respondent, did not prosecute the First respondent before the Criminal Court.
(3.) THE First Respondent raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from July 28, 1980, alleging that his services were orally terminated from july 28, 1980. The First Respondent's demand was rejected by an Award dated June 8, 1984 made by the Labour Court. Being aggrieved, the First Respondent filed Writ Petition No. 4199 of 1984 before this Court By an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court (Sawant and jahagirdar, JJ.) on November 19, 1984, the Award of the Labour Court dated June 8, 1984 was quashed and set aside by consent and remanded to the Labour Court for fresh hearing. After remand, the parties appeared before the Labour Court and led evidence in support of their respective contentions. After considering all the evidence that was led before it, the Labour court raised the following issues and answered them as under: " (i) Whether the second party (present Respondent No. 1) proves that no chargesheet was given to him nor any enquiry was made into the misconduct alleged against him? (2) Whether the second party proves that he was serving as Conductor on permanent basis? (3) Whether the first party (present Petitioner) proves that the second party has misappropriated a big amount and he remained absent fearing that the first party would start an enquiry against him? (4) Whether the first party proves that the second party was given a notice calling upon him to resume his duties as required under the law? (5) Whether the First Party has pleaded that it has lost confidence in the second party? (6) Whether the second party proves that the First party did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act, 1947? (7) Whether the First party proves that the Second Party of his own accord abandoned the service by remaining absent? (8) Whether the second party workman is entitled to reinstatement? (9) Whether the second party workman is entitled to full back wages and continuity of service? (10) What order? (12) My findings are: 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. No. 4. No. 5. No. 6. Yes. 7. No. 8. Yes. 9. Yes. 10. As per final order. " The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the First Respondent with full back wages and continuity of service. Hence, this Writ Petition.;