- (1.) HEARD Mr. K.B. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.M. Verma. learned counsel for the respondent No. I.
(2.) THE petitioner -management of Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited has challenged the order dated 11.1.1994 passed by Presiding Officer, respondent No. 2, in M.J. Case No. 3/90 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner on 8.8.1990 and proceeded with the complaint case and gave an award holding that the discharge order, dated 17.11.1989 has been passed against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent is the concerned employee, namely, Suresh Narayan Singh (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1). He was appointed as Operator Grade III. In July, 1986 he was placed in the personal grade of NP -6. When the mistake was detected, he was put back to his substantive grade. A dispute was raised which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication in Reference Case No. 21/89. While reference was pending a charge - sheet was issued on 9.9.1989 against the respondent No. 1 for unauthorized absence from duty. Show -cause having been found unsatisfactory, the management held an inquiry and finally passed an order on 17.11.1989 discharging the respondent No. 1 from service. Respondent No. 1 filled a complaint petition under Section 33 (A) of the said Act before the Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Jamshedpur which was registered as M.J. Case No. 3/90. In the mean time, the management withdrew the order of discharge dated 17.11.1989 and issued a fresh order of discharge dated 17.4.1990 after compliance of the provisions of Section 33 (2) (b) of the said Act. However, respondent No. 1 challenged the order of his termination from service. The Labour Court while rejecting the application dated 8.8.1990 held that a finding is necessary on the question whether the act of the petitioner was punishable and was liable to be prosecuted. The Labour Court recorded the following finding: '' "18. From the facts and evidences as discussed above it is clear that provision of Section 33 (3) (b) of Industrial Disputes Act has been violated by the Opposite Party. According to Section 31 of the Act any employers who contravened the provisions of Section 33 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months or with fine which may extend to 1000/ - rupees or with both. 19. Considering the facts, Circumstances and evidences available on the record as discussed above I have come to the conclusion hat the complainant was victimised for his trade union activities which amounts to unfair labour practice and the discharge order dated 17.11.1989 passed against the complainant was illegal and against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and the complainant is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits. It is further held that the Opposite Party violated the mandatory provisions of Section 33 (3) (b) of the Industrial. Disputes Act which is punishable under the Act and the Opposite Party is liable to be prosecuted. This is my Award. Dictated and Corrected by me. Sd/ -Ram Narayan Singh (R.N. Singh) 15.4.1995. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Jamshedpur."
(3.) SO far the finding of the Labour Court that the respondent No. 1 was victimized for his trade union activities and the order of discharge dated 17.11.1989 was illegal and against the provisions of the said Act is concerned, there is no anystrong reason to substitute the finding of the Labour Court and that part of the award needs no interference. However, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case the steps that have been taken by the petitioner - management does not amount to deliberate and willful violation of the provisions of the 33 (3) (b) of the said Act. In my opinion, that part of the award by Which it was held that petitioner - management is liable to be prosecuted cannot be sustained in law.;