Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) Aggrieved of the impugned award dated 21st April, 1994, passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur, the petitioners have instituted the present writ proceedings assailing the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award whereby the Labour Court while answering the reference has made an award in affirmative in favour of the respondent -workman with a direction to the petitioners (for short 'employer'), for reinstatement with continuity of service along with 50% back wages.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein while assailing the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award needs to be first noticed. The respondent -workman was initially appointed on 1st February, 1977, by the employer as 'Safai Karmchari'. The petitioners (employer) in exercise of powers under Sec. 86 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1959', for short), terminated the employment of the respondent -workman vide order dated 27th July, 1984, by one months notice before discharge. An appeal preferred against the order of discharge notice under Sec. 86 of the Act of 1959, was not entertained for the same was preferred after expiry of 30 days, and the matter was referred to the Director, Local Bodies, Jaipur, for administrative and financial sanction, and was to be placed before the Board after the sanction was accorded. The respondent -workman raised an industrial dispute. The State Government in exercise of its powers under Sec. 10(1) read with Sec. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, made a reference to the Labour Court, Jaipur on 7th August, 1987. On a consideration of the statement of claim, response to the statement of claim, evidence adduced by the parties, materials available on record and upon hearing to the representatives of the contesting parties, the Labour Court made the impugned award of which the petitioners are aggrieved.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, emphatically argued that the finding arrived at by the Labour Court for having condoned the misconduct by accepting the application for absence from duty with effect from 1st February, 1983 to 30th April, 1983, treating the same to be leave without pay; the action of the petitioners in terminating the employment of the respondent -workman was bad; is a perverse finding. According to the learned counsel, a bare perusal of the Ex. M10, which has been placed on record as Annexure -3, would reveal that the interpolation made by the petitioner in the month in the body of the application and below his signatures, is apparent on the face of record. Thus, the application for grant of leave, which was moved on 1st of June, 1983, could not have been entertained by the petitioners on 1st May, 1983, so as to treat the period of absence of the respondent -workman as leave without pay, as indicated on the application.;