STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. SMT. SAROJINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are directed against the order passed by the Industrial Court on 12-2-2004.

(2.) Since common question of fact and law is involved in both these cases, they are taken-up together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) Shri B. Narayan Rao was husband of petitioner Smt. Sarojini. He was declared medically unfit pursuant to which the petitioner made application for appointment on compassionate basis and on 11-10-1985, she was appointed as School Attendant. She was terminated on 6-8-1986, however, accepting the representation, again fresh appointment was given to her on 17-12-1986 on the post of Peon. She was again terminated on 6-7-1987 from the post of Peon and again, she was appointed on 17-8-1991 as Staff Attendant. Police verification was done and she submitted attestation form in seven copies. Desirability Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 1-4-1992. On 6-11-1996, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging that she is guilty of securing employment by impersonating herself as Sarojini, wife of B. Narayan Rao - the then Crane Operator, and she was also allegedly served with charge-sheet of voluntarily claiming LTC / LLTC in the name of Shri B. Narayan Rao and Vijay Kumar. The petitioner denied all the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet and ultimately, after conducting enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of charges and on 18-2-1998, her services were terminated on the post of Staff Attendant. The petitioner filed application under Section 31(3) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 in which the Labour Court by order dated 7-11-2000 held domestic enquiry to be invalid and bad in law. Steel Authority of India Limited challenged the order of the Labour Court in appeal and the Industrial Court by order dated 20-3-2002 held the domestic enquiry to be valid and remanded the matter to the Labour Court with a direction to reassess the documents filed in the domestic enquiry and to take decision as to whether the charged misconduct is proved or not. The Labour Court by its order dated 12-8-2002 held that the misconduct is not proved and directed for reinstatement with 50% back-wages. Steel Authority of India Limited also preferred appeal before the Industrial Court and the workman also preferred appeal. By common order, the Industrial Court has allowed the appeal in part upholding the order of reinstatement, but set aside the order of 50% back-wages against which the workman and the employer Steel Authority of India Limited both have preferred writ petitions.