Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - (1.) BY this petition, a challenge has been made to the award dated 27th March, 2012 passed by the labour court, Bharatpur. It is a case, where respondent -workman was dismissed from service vide order dated 21st October, 1985. He filed a civil suit to challenge it. The civil suit was decreed followed by dismissal of appeal by the Corporation. The matter ultimately went to the Hon'ble Apex Court and the appeal therein was decided holding that civil court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the nature of controversy involved therein. The Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, passed following directions which are quoted thus: - - 5. In our view, considering the fact that the Respondents have been working in most cases since 1990 or prior thereto, it would be appropriate that we direct the State Government to make a Reference under Section 10, to the appropriate Court within a period of three months from today. A copy or this Order to be sent to the State Government forthwith. The Respondent will be at liberty to apply for interim relief before that Court. Such application, if made, will undoubtedly be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. The Appellants are directed to maintain status quo for a period of four months from today. 6. He clarify that if any back -wages have been paid, they shall not be recovered. It, however, they have not been paid there will now be no question of paying the same. 7. It must also be clarified that Mr. Jain has based his submission on the basis that according to the Appellants. They are an industry. The Appellants will therefore not contend nor be allowed before the appropriate Court that they are not an industry. 8. The Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
(2.) AFTER the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, petitioner Corporation again discontinued the respondent -workman in absence of any order from the labour court for his continuance. This is precisely on the ground that four months' time was given by the Hon'ble Apex Court for the aforesaid purposes, in view of the fact that status quo order was for a period of four months. The learned labour court considered the issue of quantum of punishment, as challenge to the fairness of the inquiry was not made. In a case for absence from the duties, the punishment of dismissal was found to be disproportionate. The punishment was substitute by stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Corporation submits that after holding inquiry to be fair and proper, the court below could not have caused interference in the quantum of punishment.;