Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - (1.) Both the writ petitions seek to assail the award dated 23.11.2002 passed by the labour Court, No.2, Jaipur whereby the labour Court has set aside the termination order dated 6.9.1996 passed by the employer and has directed reinstatement of the petitioner on the post of Medical Field Coordinator in the present pay scale and with continuity of service. While the workmanpetitioner has assailed it to the extent it denies back wages and increments of pay and has also assailed the earlier order dated 14.03.2000 whereby the enquiry was held to be fair and proper; the employer Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as 'employer') has in their petition challenged the reinstatement.
(2.) The main submission of the employer in their petition is that the labour Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in reinstating him even after concurring with the finding of the enquiry officer and even after accepting that the management had conducted fair and proper enquiry and had found employee Mahesh Kumar Asnani guilty of alleged misconduct. It is submitted that by a detailed order the labour Court has reached to the conclusion and passed an order dated 14.03.2000 that the respondent employee had been given fair opportunity by the enquiry Officer during the course of the enquiry but the respondent-employee failed to participate in the proceedings which were ultimately concluded by the enquiry officer. Several chances were given to the employee to put up his defence. Copy of the proceedings were made available to the delinquent employee. The argument raised regarding non-supply of enquiry report was also found to be not proved. The employer had submitted that thrice the enquiry report was made available to the respondent-workman firstly by post, secondly personally, and thereafter thirdly he was supplied copy of the enquiry report in front of the Conciliation Officer. The labour Court also reached to the conclusion that inspite of three opportunities being given even if it is found that the enquiry report was not made available, no prejudice has been caused and therefore, the enquiry was treated as fair. The petitioner employer, therefore, submits that the order passed by the labour Court was unjustified. By another order passed by the labour Court dated 12.03.2001, wherein amendment was claimed on the issue relating to the respondent being within the meaning of workman, it was held by the Court that no new amendments are required.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent workman has also filed writ petition wherein he has assailed the decision of the labour Court in declaring enquiry as fair. It is submitted by the petitioner that the enquiry officer conducted enquiry at New Delhi and at that time the petitioner had prayed that the enquiry be conducted fairly. It is submitted that one witness Shri ML Dharwal who was solely produced by the management could not be crossexamined. It is stated that when the enquiry was scheduled for 24.11.1995 but the petitioner could not attend the enquiry on account of his wife's sickness and sent a fax message and a telephonic message was also sent. However, deliberately at the instance of the management, enquiry officer examined the management witness on that day and closed the evidence without completion of cross-examination. It is thus submitted that only management witness could not be cross-examined and therefore, the enquiry was glaringly unfair. On the next day also it is submitted that the petitioners' defence representative could not reach to Delhi as he was posted at Sriganganagar but no further opportunity was given to the petitioner and thus the enquiry ought not to have been declared fair.;