- (1.) Costs have been paid to respondent No. 2 in the Court today. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.3.2006 (Annexure P-7), the impact of which is the Initiation of criminal prosecution against the petitioner under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act. For the purposes of reference Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act is extracted herebelow:- Section 29 Penalty for breach of settlement or award - Any person who commits a breach of any term of any settlement or award, which is binding on him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both (and where the breach is a continuing one with a further fine which may extend to two hundred rupees for every day during which the breach continues after the conviction for the first) and the Court trying the offence, if it fines the offender may direct that the whole or any part of the fine realised from him shall be paid, by way of compensation, to any person who, in its opinion has been injured by such breach).
(2.) The facts which led to the emergence of the aforesaid situation is a dispute which was raised by the respondent-workman about the validity of his termination from the services. Reference No. 47 of 2003 pertaining to this grievance of the respondent-workman was accepted vide award dated 11.11.2004 which was an ex-parte award in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
(3.) While concluding the reference the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court concluded that the procedure preceding the termination of the respondent-workman was not followed. Neither any inquiry nor any chargesheet was served upon the workman and thus it was held mat action was violative of the principles of natural justice and accordingly, struck down.;