- (1.) Birla Institute of Scientific Research, a registered society (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner-employer', for short), is aggrieved of the award passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur, dated 7th May, 1996, and has instituted the present writ application with a prayer to quash and set aside the same. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to the finding as recorded under paragraph 15 of the impugned award and the relief granted to the contrary under Sub-clause 2 of para 16 of the impugned award.
(2.) Briefly, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are that the respondent-workman, who was initially appointed on 19th April, 1976, as Assistant; was placed under suspension on 12th June, 1984. A charge-sheet was served on 27th June, 1984, followed by an additional charge-sheet on 7th July, 1984. The enquiry committee, after an enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the relevant rules/regulations and affording ample opportunity of defence and hearing to the respondent-workman, returned a finding of guilt on all the 11 charges. The management of the petitioner-institute vide order dated 19th February, 1985, dismissed the respondent-workman from service in view of the findings arrived at by the enquiry committee. The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute assailing the legality and validity of termination of his employment. On receipt of the failure report from the Conciliation Officer, the State Government made a reference to the Labour Court-I, Jaipur. On a consideration of the statement of claim, response filed by the petitioner-institute, evidence adduced by the parties and materials available on record; the Labour Court-I, Jaipur, made the impugned award dated 7th May, 1996; substituting the penalty of dismissal from service by stoppage of two grade increments without cumulative effect with a further direction for reinstatement and the period with effect from the date of termination until reinstatement, to be treated as suspension. The consequential benefits but for the stoppage of two grade increments without cumulative effect, were to be accorded on notional basis and the pay fixation was carried out accordingly.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mahesh Sharma, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application asserted that the Labour Court-I, Jaipur, while interfering with the penalty of dismissal from service and substituting the same by stoppage of two grade increments without cumulative effect, committed gross error of law and fact. The Court below on the basis of specific findings, with reference to back wages, arrived at the conclusion to restrict the relief only to the extent of suspension allowance, received by the respondent-workman during the period of suspension and during the proceedings before the Labour Court. A specific conclusion arrived at to effect that the respondent-workman but for the amount of suspension allowance; would not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of back wages. But to the contrary, in the relief awarded under Sub-para 2 of para 16, while treating the period with effect from the date of termination till the date of the award as suspension also granted the relief of suspension allowance and the same has been awarded in lieu of back wages in accordance with the rules.;