- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondentsworkmen.
(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that once the workmen conceded that the domestic inquiry conducted by the management is fair and proper, learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur committed an error of law in exercising its power u/s 11(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act only by relying on the judgment reported in 1973 S.C.C(L.N.&S) page 341. Subsequently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in another judgment in the case of Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh V/s. Management of Usha Breco Ltd. & others, 2008 5 SCC 554 discussed that the Tribunal should be cautious in reconsidering the evidence and only when it found that the judgment arrived at by the domestic inquiry was not bad , it should interfere, that too sparingly.
(3.) After hearing both the parties and going through the impugned award, I find that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has exercised its power u/s 11(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 keeping in mind the caution given in the case of Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh and found that in para 14,15 and 16 of its judgment that the only evidence brought by the management against the 5 workmen were that they went to the chamber of the Managing Director without informing him on 24.9.1993 at 9.15 p.m. Witness No. 2 has also accepted that these workmen went to the chamber of Managing Director at 9.15 a.m. They accepted that no shouting was made by the workers nor any slogan were raised by them. They only went to meet the Managing Director. The court has came to a finding that the management has not adduced any evidence regarding any occurrence in the chamber of the Managing Director on that day. Discussing the evidences, the reference court came to a finding that only fact which is established is workmen left the work place on 24.9.1993, but the management has failed to show that it was unauthorized.;