- (1.) The petitioner, a Co-operative Agricultural Service Society, is aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court. A few facts may be noticed.
(2.) On September 1, 1984, the petitioner-Society recorded a resolution, a copy of which has been produced on record as Annexure P-2. It was mentioned that "Nand Singh Chowkidar is always absent from his duty the President of the Society is authorised to suspend Nand Singh Chowkidar for his remaining absent from duty. Further proceeding in this regard will be conducted by a committee of five members which will give its report within a period of one month and will submit the enquiry to the society for further action---------." Thereafter, on October 10, 1984, the petitioner resolved that "Shri Nand Singh Chowkidar was suspended on 1.9.84. On 7.9.84, he was given the charge-sheet, a reply to which was required to be given within a period of one month by him. But he had not given any reply upto 10.10.1984. Therefore, he is dismissed from the services of the society. (Services are being terminated). This is unanimously resolved and accepted." Aggrieved by this action, the petitioner served a notice of demand. The matter was referred to the Labour Court. The workman filed a Statement of Claim. After examining the evidence, the Labour Court recorded a finding of fact that "no notice was served on the workman and no enquiry whatsoever was conducted against the workman..." As a result, it ordered the reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and full back wages. Aggrieved by this award, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.
(3.) Mr. B.S. Shant, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a two-fold contention. Firstly, it has been submitted that the workman having remained absent from duty, the action of the petitioner in dismissing him from service was, absolutely legal and valid and that the labour Court has erred in ordering his reinstatement. Secondly, it has been contended that respondent No. 3 was one of the constituents of the petitioner-Society and that the liability of the petitioner has to be shared by the said respondent as well. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by Mr. Sarjit Singh, learned counsel for the workman.;