Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, 'Tribunal') vide award dated 13th May, 1998, allowed the complaint of the respondent -workman with a direction to the petitioners to reinstate and accord back wages while declaring the termination of the employment of the respondent -workman as illegal and void. Aggrieved of the award dated 13th May, 1998, the petitioners have instituted the instant writ proceedings seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned award, and further, to dismiss the complaint of the respondent -workman with costs.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised needs to be first noticed. The Wires & Fabrics (SA) Limited, Jaipur, a registered Company, (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer', for short), terminated the services of the respondent -workman vide order dated 6th July, 1989 (Annexure -6), who was appointed as Store Clerk on 2nd October, 1972. The termination of the employment of the respondent -workman was preceded by a domestic enquiry for non -compliance of the order of transfer dated 16th August, 1988, on promotion, to Kolkata. The respondent -workman was relieved on 20th August, 1988, but avoided compliance of the transfer order on account of personal problems and expressed his inability to join at the transferred place. Treating the non -compliance of the order of transfer, on promotion, to be insubordination; a charge sheet was issued to the respondent -workman followed by an inquiry leading to termination of the employment. The respondent -workman challenged the termination of employment by a complaint under Section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1947', for short), before the Tribunal, for infraction of the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947. The Tribunal taking into consideration the contents of the complaint, response filed on behalf of the employer, evidence adduced and upon hearing the representatives of the contesting parties, passed the impugned award of which the petitioner -employer is aggrieved of.
(3.) MR . S.C. Goyal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner -employer, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application strenuously argued that the respondent -workman being Store Incharge was a member of the staff of the petitioners' organization and was transferred to Kolkata on 16th August, 1998, on promotion. However, the respondent -workman expressed his inability to join at the transferred place, an act of insubordination, and therefore, a domestic inquiry was conducted serving a charge sheet on the respondent -workman leading to termination of his employment vide order dated 6th July, 1989 (Annexure -6).;