- (1.) Gugan Ram through present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India takes strong exception to the award, Annexure PI dated 6.12.1991 rendered by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak. The workman lost his cause before the Labour Court on the solitary ground that the management was able to prove the guilt of the workman during the proceedings in the Court itself. It is admitted position that no domestic enquiry was held in the matter although termination was on account of misconduct i.e. wilful absence and negligence in his duties. While holding so against the petitioner-workman, this is how the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court proceeded in the matter:- "From the allegations of the Management, it is proved that the workman was terminated on account of punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action and not otherwise. The Point is whether the Management has been able to prove the alleged misconduct committed by the workman or not. To prove the misconduct committed by the workman, the Management Has examined Smt. Lakshmi Jain, Headmistress MW-1 and the Management has also pleaded on record the documents Ex M-l to M-7 which documents have been admitted by the workman in his statement as MW-1. After going through the statement of MW-1, Smt. Lakshmi Jain and the documents , it is proved beyond doubt that the workman was guilty of wilful absence and negligence in his duty and for the same reason he was terminated on account of punishment inflicted upon him.
(2.) The perusal of the operative part of the order extracted above would manifest that conclusion was arrived at without discussing the statement of the solitary witness produced on behalf of the Management Smt. Lakshmi Jain as also without even remotely mentioning as to what was contained in documents Ex. Ml to M7. The Labour Court was passing a judicial order and it ought to have recorded reasons after appraisal of oral and documentary evidence which course was apparently not adopted by the Labour Court. There is, thus, no choice in the matter but for to set aside the order of the Labour Court and remit the case to the Labour Court for redetermining the matter after discussing the evidence led by the parties and then to come to a conclusion.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-workman, however, vehemently contends that even if the guilt of the petitioner-workman is proved before the Labour Court for the first time, he was certainly entitled to wages from the time he was terminated till the award is rendered by the Court. For his afore-stated contention, he relies upon Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. etc. etc. versus Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor, Sabha and others, 1980 AIR(SC) 1896. The contention of learned counsel has considerable force. It is settled law that if the guilt of the workman is established for the Labour Court for the first time, he is entitled to wages for the period when he was terminated till such time the award was rendered by the Court. While remitting this case to the Labour Court for determining the controversy as indicated above, a direction is given to the respondent-management to pay the petitioner his wages from 5.10.1987 when his services were terminated till the date of award. This is only interim direction the rights of the parties would be finally adjudicated by the Labour Court. The back wages after calculation be paid to the petitioner within two months from today. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 3.3.1994. No order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.;