- (1.) Award dated, 14.12.81 passed by the Labour Court, Kota, in case No. 74/78 declaring termination of the service of the petitioner as illegal and unjustified but at the same time, ordering payment of compensation equivalent to ten months' service is under challenge in this writ petition filed by the workman, Girraj Prasad.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Girraj Prasad joined service of Shri Ram Rayons, Kota as Fitter in the year 1963. He was served with a charge-sheet dated, 25.7.75 for his alleged misconduct of absence from duty. On the basis of domestic enquiry he was placed under suspension for 4 days between 21.1.76 to 24.1.76 as a measure of penalty. A second Charge-sheet dated 29.4.76 was served on the petitioner with allegation of wilful absence from duty. He filed a reply dated 1.5.76 and denied the charges. He also pleaded that the management of the company was out to harass and victimise him for his trade union activities as a member and then as a President of Shri Ram Rayons, Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union, Kota, a Union affiliated with CITU. The petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of the domestic enquiry on the charge of wilful absence from duty for a period of 31 days. Order of dismissal was passed by the Management on 4.7.76. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute. He approached for conciliation to the Conciliation Officer. These proceedings resulted in failure report submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the State Government. Ultimately, the State Government made a reference of the dispute to the Labour Court, Kota vide notification dated 2.11.77. Petitioner filed his statement of claim on 4.4.78. A written statement was filed by respondent No. 1 on 22.5.78. After recording evidence of both the parties, the Judge Labour Court, passed the impugned award dated 14.12.81.
(3.) Shri Virendra Bandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the Labour Court has committed a serious illegality in declining to go into the question of fairness of inquiry only on the ground that in an application filed by the employer before the Labour Court the question of fairness has already been examined by the Labour Court and the action of the employer has been approved under section-33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Shri Bandhu argued that the ambit and scope of proceedings under section-33C (b) is different than that of proceedings arising out of reference under section-10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and therefore, the Labour Court had no justification to set out the case of the petitioner on the question of fairness of inquiry merely by making a reference to the order of Tribunal dated 14.7.76. Shri Bandhu placed reliance on the decision of Amalgamated Electric Co. v. Its workmen,1975 LabIC 879) and Lagan Jute Machinery Co. Ltd. v. 8th Industrial Tribunal,1988 1 LLN 421). Shri Bandhu then argued that the learned Judge, Labour Court has completely failed to appreciate the scope of Section-llA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has failed to appreciate that after insertion of Section-llA the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal has got a jurisdiction to re-appreciate the finding recorded by the employer on the basis of a domestic enquiry and it is open to the Labour Court to arrive at a finding different than the finding arrived at by the employer. Similarly, on the question of quantum of punishment the Labour Court has right to modify the punishment in case it is found that the punishment is unjust. Shri Bandhu, further submitted that the learned Judge, Labour Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record by observing that the workman had not come on duty for 117 days and that he had remained absent from duty for 31 days. Shri Bandhu argued that this finding of the learned Judge, Labour Court is perverse. Shri Maneesh Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 argued that this Court must not interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court. On the question of absence of the workman Shri Bhandari argued that the Labour Court has considered the entire evidence for reaching a conclusion that the workman is guilty of habitual absence. Shri Bhandari argued that on the question of fairness of domestic enquiry or victimisation by the employer finding recorded by the Labour Court in proceedings arising out of an application under section 33(2) (b) is final and the Labour Court has rightly held that question regarding fairness of inquiry cannot be gone into once again in the reference proceedings.;