PERMOD KOHLI,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the award dated 01st on April, 2000, passed by the Labour court, Jamshedpur in a Reference Case No. 17 of 1987 under Section 102A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour court framed the following four issues for its consideration: (i) Whether the Officer who had passed discharge order against the workman is competent to pass such order? (ii) Whether the charge of misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet stands established? (iii) Whether the termination of service of the workman by the management is justified? (iv) Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement and/or any other relief?
(2.) ON the basis of the materials placed before the Labour Court, it returned findings in respect to issues Nos. (i) and (ii) against the workman, however, issues Nos. (iii) and (iv) were decided in his favour. The Labour Court is of the opinion that though misconduct, i.e. unauthorized absence, has been established against the workman, however, this being the only misconduct attributed to the workman and some similarly situated workmen having been reinstated, the Court formulated an opinion that termination of service of the workman is harsh and disproportionate and thus not justified. Termination was accordingly set aside and he was reinstated to service with all back wages except for the period from the date of termination till the date of notification of the dispute i.e. 06th of July, 1987. From the record, it is revealed that the workman was terminated on 10thof September, 1981 with effect from 12thof September, 1981. Dispute was notified on 06thof July, 1987, therefore, workman has not been allowed any wages during this period i.e. from 12thof September, 1981 to 06thof July, 1987. However, the Labour court has allowed full back wages from 07thof July, 1987 till the pronouncement of the award on 27thof June, 2000. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner -employer has vehemently argued that in view of the fact that the misconduct was established against the workman, the Labour Court was not justified in ordering reinstatement. I have perused the award passed by the Labour Court and findings recorded, therein. On the basis of the evidence/material, the Labour Court has passed the impugned award specifically holding, therein, that the misconduct attributed to the workman do not justify the ultimate punishment of termination. The Labour court has recorded that this is the only misconduct attributed to the workmen during his entire service with the Management. In exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226, it is not deemed appropriate to reappraise the evidence/material on the basis of which the impugned award has been passed. The Labour court has exercised its discretion in accordance with law. It was persuaded by two factors to order the reinstatement: (i) This was the only misconduct attributed to the workman during his service (ii) similarly situated workmen have been reinstated and the workman has been treated with hostility and discrimination. I am of the considered view that the findings of the Tribunal and the ultimate directions issued are not required to be interfered, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the facts and circumstances of this case. However, keeping in view the fact that misconduct was established against the workman, I am of the view that the full wages awarded by the Labour Court also cannot be justified. The order of the Labour Court is, accordingly, modified and respondent -workman will be entitled to 50 per cent of the back wages for the period for which full wages have been allowed by the Labour Court. However, he will be entitled to full wages with effect from the date, he has reported for duty on reinstatement. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the above modification of award.;