- (1.) The Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, Panipat, has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rohtak, dated 2.4.1993, vide which respondent No. 2 has been ordered to be reinstated with full back wages.
(2.) Before referring to the points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking quashing of the order, it would be appropriate to refer the salient facts which led to this unsavoury dispute between the management and its workers. It is on 8.6.1984 that the Managing Director vide Annexure P-2 dated 8.6.1984 passed an order changing the working hours of the Mill i.e. office will work from 9-00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. with one hour lunch break from 1.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. on all week days. It may be noticed that earlier to this order office hours were from 9.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. and from 130 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. with lunch break from 1230 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. on all working days except Saturday. On Saturday the working time was from 9.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. only. This way working hours were increased from 39 to 41 hours a week which was objected to by the employees and specifically by respondent No. 2-Jagmohan Lal who brought to the notice of the General Manager that change in the service condition is unwarranted and illegal and otherwise too could only be brought up after validity issuing the notice under section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act'). Before this order could be implemented, the same was withdrawn vide order dated 14.6.1984, Annexure P-4 ((9.6.1984 Saturday was holiday). However, since respondent No. 2 refused to abide by the instructions issued vide order dated 8.6.1984 and thus had misconducted under the Certified Standing Orders of the Mill; the management issued a charge-sheet for disobedience vide Annexure P-5, pursuance to which respondent No. 2 replied to the same vide Annexure P-6 and P-7 calling upon the General Manager to withdraw the order and in the latter communication specifically stated that unless it is made clear that he is to work only for 6 hours and 30 minutes per day and not 7 hours, he would abstain from the work. This communication is dated 11.6.1984, Annexure P-7. The management feeling dissatisfied with the reply given to the charge-sheet ordered for domestic enquiry vide Annexure P-8. Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the workman refused to obey the lawful order of the Managing Director and remained absent without any leave or permission since 11.6.1984 and so the charge levelled against him stands proved. On the receipt of the report of the enquiry Officer, the Managing Director after recording that the act of misconduct committed by the respondent and proved against him is prove and the respondent is liable to be dismissed from service; yet taking a lenient view ordered his demotion to the post of Accounts Assistant in Clerical Grade-II. As regards his absence from duty from 11.6.1984 till the date of his joining, it was to be treated as leave of the kind due and in case he failed to join duty within seven days of this order, it was to be presumed that he was not interested to serve the mill any longer. This order is dated 16.11.1984, Annexure P-10.
(3.) The respondent worker, however, to prove that he had been prevented by the Management from performing his duties made mention of the same vide registered letter detailing therein that the Time Keeper, Despatch Clerk and Security Officer etc. did not let him enter the mill premises and hence there was no course open for him but to intimate the management-General Manager-by this registered communication. These assertions of the respondent worker were denied by the Managing Director who once again asked the respondent to join his duty as well as associate with the enquiry which is in progress-Annexure P-13.;