KARIYANNA J M Vs. BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner-workman has called in question the award dated June 5, 2002 in I. D. No. 63/1992 passed by the Labour court at Bangalore.

(2.) THE petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased workman- J. M. Kariyannna. The deceased workman was appointed in the establishment of respondent on july 4, 1960. On February 29, 1980, the respondent served a charge sheet on the workman stating that he remained unauthorisedly absent from January 1979 to february 1980. The workman submitted his reply denying the charge against him and contended that on account of his daughter's marriage, his mother's illness and in addition to that, he also suffered illness and therefore, he was forced to remain absent from duty. Subsequently, a domestic enquiry was held and the disciplinary authority by accepting the findings of the domestic enquiry passed an order on July 13, 1981 dismissing the workman from service. Aggrieved by this order of dismissal, the workman raised a dispute in I. D. No. 63/1992 on the file of the Labour Court at bangalore under Section 10 (4-A) of the industrial Disputes Act. Before the Labour court, the workman filed his claim statement as per Annexure 'a' to the writ petition. The respondent filed its counter as per Annexure 'b' dated February 23, 1994. On the basis of the pleadings on record, the Labour Court framed the following three issues for its consideration. i) whether the domestic enquiry is fair and proper? ii) Whether 2nd party is justified in dismissing the 1st parry? iii) What order?

(3.) BOTH the parties adduced oral evidence and also produced documentary evidence on the preliminary issue No. 1. The Labour Court vide order dated January 21, 1995 held the domestic enquiry as not fair and proper. Subsequently, on February 22, 2000, the workman died. After the demise of workman, his legal representatives were brought on record. On the side of deceased workman, no oral evidence is adduced and no documents are produced. Thereafter, the respondent examined two witnesses as MW2 and MW3 and got marked documents exhibits Ml to m21. The Labour Court on appreciation of the pleadings, the oral and documentary evidence on record passed the impugned award rejecting the claim of workman and reduced the order of dismissal into one as termination and further directed that the legal representatives of deceased workman are entitled to receive all the terminal benefits after deducting the amount paid to the deceased workman towards interim relief. Hence this writ petition by the legal representatives of the deceased workman.