- (1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the award dated 1.2.2012 (Annexure P/15) passed by the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Bhatinda whereby respondent -workman was held entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and 30% back wages.
(2.) THE claim of the workman before the Labour Court was that he had joined in the month of December, 1994 at Coral Filling Station, Madhopur which was run by the petitioner -Corporation and was getting salary of Rs. 1200/ - per month. He was transferred to Kaner Filling Station, Moga on 10.8.1995. While serving on that station, on 3.12.1998 a show cause notice was issued to him with malafide intention on the basis of false and baseless allegations. He requested for supply of some documents so that he could submit his reply and submitted his reply in May, 1999. He had fallen ill during the month of December, 1998 and when he approached for joining he was not allowed to join his duties by the management. No enquiry had been held and his services were terminated without any notice or cogent reasons. The juniors were working at the Filling Station and newly appointed persons were also there after his termination and accordingly, he claimed violation of provisions of Sections 25 -F and 25 -G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
(3.) IN the reply the plea taken was that the workman had embezzled Rs. 38,841.92 and a show cause notice was accordingly issued to him on 3.12.1998. The work and conduct of the workman was not satisfactory and he used to consume liquor while on duty and also admitted his fault and tendered written apology vide letter dated 17.10.1998 while admitting his fault of consuming liquor. He willfully remained absent from duty for ten days without handing over the keys of the almirah due to which the work of Filling Station suffered to a great extent. He had tried to destroy the Filling Station, Moga by setting it ablaze with the help of match box on the night of 17.11.1998. He continued to remain willful absent from 5.3.1999. He was called to meet the Addl. Managing Director on 17.2.2000 and he assured that he would deposit the entire amount of Rs. 38,841.92 by Ist of March, 2000 but neither he deposited the amount nor reported for duty. It was denied that any junior had been appointed. After taking into consideration the evidence of Ganga Lal, MW -1 and the deposition of the workman, the Labour Court came to conclusion that workman had worked for more than 240 days preceding his termination and he was entitled to take advantage of provisions of Sections 25 -F of the Act. It is, however, noticed that there was correspondence interse the management and the workman regarding his misconduct but no domestic enquiry had been held and, therefore, there was non compliance of mandatory provisions of the Act and principles of natural justice. No termination order had been passed and claim that he had abandoned his job was not proved. Therefore, it was held that the workman has a valid cause of action and the alleged termination from 5.3.1999 was illegal and unjustified.;