RAJESH SHANKAR, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment dated 13.03.2010 in BS Case No. 10/96 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, whereby the complaint filed by the respondent was allowed and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent and to pay him back wages within 60 days from the date of the judgment, failing which, the petitioner would be liable to pay interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of judgment.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 20.01.1996 the respondent was working in A-Shift and there was one guest who required the service of bearer at 5 AM and therefore, the respondent was asked to come one hour earlier to his job but he refused to do so and thereafter, another bearer working in B-Shift was requested to come to his job on the next date i.e. on 21.1.1996 at 5 AM and the respondent was directed to come in B-Shift. Despite the said clear instruction in that regard, the respondent turned up in A-Shift at 6 AM and even after being told by the other bearer who was present since 5 AM that his duty has been changed to B-Shift, the respondent remained in the premises and when the supervisor came at about 9 AM and asked him to come in B-Shift, he shouted at him and refused to come in B-Shift. Since it was a case of insubordination, the matter was reported to the higher authority who issued chagesheet to the respondent. It is further submitted that at the initial stage, the complainant participated in the enquiry proceeding and on the 3rd day of the enquiry, he requested assistance of an unrecognized Union, which was not allowed and thereafter he did not participate in the enquiry proceeding. After giving ample opportunity to the respondent for taking part in the enquiry proceeding, the enquiry was held ex parte and the Enquiry Officer held the respondent guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the respondent moved before the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur after his termination from service. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court did not appreciate the evidence adduced by the parties during the proceeding before it, rather looked into the evidence adduced during the enquiry proceeding and the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and held that the charges against the respondent has not been proved and thus he was entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages and consequential benefits with continuity of service.;