THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, GULBARGA AND ORS. Vs. BASAVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are before this Court assailing the award dated 15.06.2009 passed in KID No.183/2004. The award is impugned at Annexure-A to the petition.

(2.) The respondent herein was appointed as Gangman by the petitioners and had been posted to work in the office of the first petitioner since the year 1998. The requisite qualification for the said post was a pass in 7th standard. The respondent claiming to have studied in the Independent Higher Primary School, Ambedkar Colony, Harur Geri, Bidar has submitted his credentials at the time of selection. Subsequent to the selection of the respondent and he being provided with the job, one Sri. Vilas who is also stated to have made an application but having failed in the selection made a complaint to the petitioners that the documents submitted by the respondent are not genuine and the said person had claimed that the document which related to him had been relied upon by the respondent to seek employment. Petitioners had accordingly secured complaint filed in that regard which on investigation had resulted in filing of charge- sheet in C.C.No.30/2005. However, on trial, the respondent was acquitted by the judgment dated 19.09.2007. In view of registration of the criminal case, petitioners had also taken action to dismiss the respondent from service by the order dated 23.04.2004. The respondent herein raised a dispute by filing petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in KID No.183/2004. The dispute was ultimately considered by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gulbarga. In that light, on having taken note of the acquittal in the criminal proceedings and there being no other proceedings held by the petitioners to establish the allegation against the respondent, the Labour Court was of the opinion that the dismissal order dated 23.04.2004 is not justified. The same was accordingly set aside and a direction has been issued to the petitioners to reinstate the respondent into service with continuity of service and 40% of the backwages. Petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by the said award are before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the award would contend that the Labour Court was not justified in its conclusion. It is her case that the documents as submitted by the respondent while seeking employment pertain to the complainant-Sri Vilas and therefore, the Labour Court ought to have kept this in view before coming to a conclusion and ought not to have relied only on the acquittal in the criminal proceedings. It is in that light contended that the documents being not genuine and pertaining to the respondent, the respondent could not have claimed benefit of employment.