ARVIND KUMAR, J. - (1.) The petitioner-management has sought quashing of award dated June 15, 1985 passed by respondent No. 2.
(2.) The facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 was an employee of the petitioner- management. On August 6, 1982, when Factory Supervisor Sh. Surinder Kumar Juneja, asked the petitioner and other workers to unload the acid tanker, to which they refused. They also prevented other workers carrying out the task of empty the acid tanker. Resultantly, the management had to pay the demurrage charges of night halt of the truck. Therefore on account of disobeying the orders of his superior, the respondent-workman was suspended w.e.f. August 7, 1982 and was served with a charge-sheet dated August 8, 1982. He filed a reply to the charge-sheet, which was not found satisfactory. Accordingly, an enquiry officer was appointed, who conducted the enquiry against the petitioner. The enquiry officer, on the basis of material placed before him, held the charges contained in the charge-sheet dated August 8, 1992 proved against the petitioner. Resultantly, the petitioner-management issued a show cause notice to respondent No. 1 and ultimately terminated his service.
(3.) Respondent No. 1 challenged his termination by serving a demand notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity the Act) upon the petitioner-management submitting therein that the enquiry against him was not conducted as per the principles of natural justice and that he has been victimized on account of his union activities. He prayed for his re-instatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The matter was referred to the Labour Court. Respondent No. 1 filed the claim statement, which was contested by the petitioner- management by submitting a reply. Their stand was that the enquiry was conducted fairly and properly, within the four corners of principles of natural justice and that the petitioner is gainfully employed. Thus, dismissal of the claim was sought.;