- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge upholding the Award of the Labour Court directing the appellants to reinstate respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as the workman) with continuity of service and payment of 2/3rd backwages. The workman was employed initially on a temporary basis in May, 1978. He was made permanent on 9-8-1981 and designated as a fitter in the Chassis Assembly Department. A charge-sheet was issued to him by the appellants on 27-11-1991 alleging that the workman had used abusive and filthy language against his supervisor. An enquiry was instituted against the workman as the appellants did not accept his reply. On the findings and report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the appellants decided to dismiss the workman. Accordingly, the workmans services were terminated by way of dismissal on 5-3-1993 after taking into account his past service record.
(2.)A reference was made being Reference (IDA) No. 66 of 1994 for adjudication of the dispute regarding reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages of the workman with the appellants. By Award Part I dated 5-9-1996, the Labour Court held that the enquiry instituted against the workman was not fair and proper and, therefore, set aside the same as the charge-sheet issued to the workman was vague. Evidence was led by both the parties afresh before the Labour Court and the exact abusive words were placed before the Court. By Award Part II dated 13-3-2001, the Labour Court held on the basis of the evidence on record that the workman was guilty of misconduct alleged against him. However, the Labour Court was of the view that the misconduct was not such as to warrant punishment of dismissal and, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in it under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directed the appellants to reinstate the workman with continuity of service. By way of punishment, the Labour Court deprived the workman of 1/3rd of his backwages for the intervening period, as according to the Labour Court, this would be a sufficient deterrent to the workman. Being aggrieved by this Award, the appellants filed the writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge confirmed the Award and held that deprivation of 1/3rd of backwages for the intervening period from 5-3-1993 till the date of the Award was sufficient to punish the workman for having committed the misconduct alleged against him. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants.
(3.)MR. Singh has appeared for the appellant company and Mr. Nagle for the respondent No. 1 workman. As requested by both the Counsel, we are hearing the appeal finally at the admission stage itself. We would like to record that before hearing the matter finally, we explored the possibility of a settlement, but that was not possible. Mr. Singh submitted that in the facts of the present case the punishment imposed by the appellants should be left undisturbed. Alternatively, he submitted that the appellants may consider some appropriate amount for a settlement.