- (1.) THIS writ petition is by an employer against the award (Annexure 13), dated 18th September, 1982, by which the Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Kota, has decided the reference made to it under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by holding that the termination of service of the workman, Girraj Prasad, by the employer was unjustified and instead of this punishment, the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed. By the award, the workman, Girraj Prasad, has consequently been ordered to be reinstated with full back-wages. The employer is aggrieved by the interference made in this manner by the award. Hence, this petition to quash the award.
(2.) THE material facts are a few only. The aforesaid workman, Girraj Prasad, whose cause has been espoused by respondent 1-union, was employed as maintenance fitter in the carbide plant of the petitioner's factory and was later on transferred in the same capacity to the ammonia plant. A charge-sheet, dated 26 April 1980, was served on Girraj Prasad alleging that he went to the house of a co-worker. P. P. Singh, on 23 April 1980, and threatened his wife with dire consequences on account of P. P. Singh not joining other workers in the agitation, and on 25 April 1980, of threatening the said co-worker while on duty in the factory to assault him and his family members for the same reason. A corrigendum to the charge-sheet was given to Girraj Prasad, who after reading it refused to accept the same. Consequently another charge was framed of refusal to accept the corrigendum after reading it on 2nd May, 19 80, which amounted to impertinence or in-subordination. The enquiry officer held that the charge relating to the incident on 23rd April 1980, was not proved, while the charge of threatening the co-worker in factory premises on 25th April 1980 was proved. The enquiry officer's report is Annexu-re 4, dated 26 September 1980. Relating to the incident on 2nd May 1980. which was the subject-matter of another charge, the enquiry report, annexure 5, dated 20 August 1980, held that Girraj Prasad after reading the corrigendum had returned it instead of acknowledging its receipt. This charge was also therefore held to be proved. Curiously enough, the employer made the final order much later on 23 March 1981, imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by this action of the employer, the union raised a dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal.
(3.) THE Tribunal treated as preliminary issue the question whether the domestic enquiry was fair. By its order (Annexure 9), dated 3 July 1982, it held that the domestic enquiry was fair. Thereafter, by its award (Annexure 13), dated 18 September 1982, it has come to the conclusion that the charge relating to the incident on 25 April 1980, of threatening a co-worker, P. P. Singh, within the factory premises was rightly held proved. The Tribunal then proceeded to consider the circumstances of the case including the fact that the decision to terminate his service was taken about six months after getting the enquiry reports and during the intervening period a fresh charter of demands was submitted by the workmen on 19 January 1981, to which this workman, Girraj Prasad, was also a signatory. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the punishment of termination of service was too harsh and was incommensurate with the charge found proved. Consequently, the punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was substituted for the punishment of termination from service, directing reinstatement of the worker with full back-wages.;