SHANKER FLOUR RICE AND DAL MILLS Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Shanker Flour, Rice and Dal Mills, Bareilly, is a partnership firm carrying on the business of flour-milling. On 12 September 1960 it framed three charges against one of its workmen, Mani Ram, the charges being:

(2.) THE labour court made its award on 12 February 1962, holding that the dismissal of Mani Ram was illegal and unjustified and directing his reinstatement with continuity of service. Aggrieved by the award, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for certiorari.

(3.) THE labour court has found that the reference of the dispute was not invalid, that the third charge was vague and in any event on the basis of the allegations contained in the charge itself the negligence was one falling under standing order 22 (6) and not under standing order 20 (j) and, therefore, the workman could only be censured or warned but could not be dismissed, that the charges were framed and dismissal effected in order to victimize the workman, and that the domestic enquiry suffered from a serious defect in that the report of the expert, Kedesia, on the basis of which the workman had been accused of negligence under the third charge had not been filed on the record and Kedesia had not been produced. Further, the labour court found that in awarding the punishment of dismissal the petitioner did not take into account, as it was bound to, the previous record of the workman.