S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the employer has challenged the award of respondent No. 1 in favour of the workman -respondent No. 2, in which respondent No. 2 was ordered to be re -instated in service without continuity of service and back wages to the extend of 50%.
(2.) THE case of respondent No. 2 was that he was in service of the petitioner as a driver since January, 1993. However, all of a sudden on 17.9.1997, without any reason, his service was terminated. It is contended that the termination is in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as neither any notice was served on him nor any compensation was paid to him. The petitioner did not appear before the labour court. In this petition, it is mentioned by the petitioner that termination of service of respondent No. 2 was not illegal or violative of the provisions of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that an incident took place on 27.8.1999. On that day, after the duty hours, respondent No. 2 -Dilbag Singh, conductor Kuldip Singh and one Lalit Parshad, remained in the School premises and at about 7.30 PM respondent No. 2 alongwith the others took liquor and under the influence of liquor, (hey took out money from the pocket of Jagir Singh, who was chowkidar in the School, while he was sleeping. Respondent No. 2 and Kuldip Singh cut the hair and beard of Jagir Singh and they threw him from his cot on the ground 2 -3 times. On the next day, because of the hue and cry and because the incident would have taken religious turn, the petitioner and other members of the staff intervened. Respondent No. 2 and conductor were asked to leave the school. Jagir Singh was very much upset and he lodged a complaint with the S.H.O. Police Station Section 3, Chandigarh. It is fur - the contended that because the incident was very delicate and involved religious sentiments, a compromise was arrived at between the parties, by the S.H.O. Respondent No. 2 admitted his guilt and felt sorry. It was only after he apologized for the incident that Jagir Singh gave it in writing that he did not want to pursue the case further. It has further been contended by the petitioner that the offence committed by respondent No. 2 was a very grave one and it was admitted by respondent No. 2 and thus, it was not felt necessary to hold any enquiry.
(3.) IT is further contended that respondent No. 2 filed a demand notice, which was referred to the labour court for adjudication. The notice was received from respondent No. 1 but since the petitioner was under the erroneous belief that educational institutes are not industry, the petitioner did not pay any heed to the summons issued by respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the award was passed ex -parte. Publication of the award was made but it came to the notice of the petitioner only in the first week of March, 2000 when a telephonic message was received from the office of La -bour -cum -Conciliation officer directing the petitioner to be present in the office.;