ARVIND KUMAR, J. - (1.) THESE two sets of cases are cross petitioners filed by Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred as the Management) and its workman Chander Shekhar (hereinafter referred as the Workman), against the Award dated 18.5.1984 passed by the Labour Court. Since both the writ petitions are filed against a common award, I propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment.
(2.) THE broad facts of the case as emerged out from the petitions as also narrated by learned counsel for the parties are that, the Workman was appointed as Assistant Account in the Management on 1.5.1970 (though, as per Workman the date of appointment is 26.2.1970). The problem started when the Workman was transferred to Gurdaspur, but refused to join on the seat when asked by A.E. and questioned the identity of A.E. Gurdaspur. He left the office on 28.6.1974 without the prior permission of A.E. Gurdaspur. Resultantly the workman was placed under suspension on 18.7.1974 and accordingly he was served with a charge sheet containing allegations of insubordination, indiscipline as the workman do not comply with the orders of competent authority and left the station without prior permission of the competent authority and remained wilful absent from duties. On 25.2.1976, the Workman was dismissed from service which gave rise to an industrial dispute and the appropriate government, who initially refused to make reference to the dispute on 24.3.1977, vide order dated 16.8.1977 referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, under Section 11(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, the Act). The reference was contested by the management. Both the parties led their respective evidence and the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide the impugned award held the workman guilty of insubordination and at the same time it observed that the same was not malicious and willful and the workman had done so under mistaken notion of his relationship with union of employees as he was its General Secretary at that time.
(3.) THE Labour Court with regard to the charges against the workman of leaving the station without prior permission of the competent authority and remaining wilful absent without leave, has given findings in favour of the workman and held that the Management has failed to substantiate the same.;