BIRLA TEXTILE MILLS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition the Petitioner challenges the Order 27th February, 1998 passed in OP No. 18/1996 rejecting the application of the Petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (in short the ID Act) and the awards dated 19th February, 1996 and 27th February, 1998 passed in ID No. 303/1995(which was later on renumbered as ID No.186/96) and ID No. 186/96 respectively.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are that the Respondent No.2 mis-conducted on 3rd April, 1992 and after a preliminary enquiry a charge-sheet was issued to him. On 2nd June, 1992 the enquiry officer after recording of the evidence of the witnesses returned his finding, on the basis of which Respondent No.2 was dismissed from service. The Petitioner filed an approval petition under Section 33(2)(b) ID Act registered as OP No. 18/1996. In the meantime, on the Respondent No.2 raising a dispute a reference was made by the Government in the following terms; "whether the services of Shri Kanhya Lal have been terminated illegally and/ or unjustifiably by the management and if so to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?". Vide award dated 19th February, 1996 passed in ID No. 303/95 on the preliminary issue of the domestic enquiry, learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was defective only for non- supply of copy of enquiry report to the workman. Thus, opportunity was granted to the workman for hearing regarding the prejudice caused to him because of non-supply of copy of the enquiry report. In the approval application i.e. OP 18/1996 on the preliminary issue regarding validity of the enquiry, it was held that the enquiry was not fair and proper. However, no opportunity was given to the management to adduce evidence as the same was afforded in ID No. 186/96 and thus the approval application was rejected. Vide the award dated 27th February, 1998 passed in ID No. 186/96 it was held that prejudice has been caused to the Respondent No.2 on account of non-supply of the enquiry report and thus the enquiry was not fair and proper. It was further held that the management has failed to prove the charge leveled against the workman and the punishment of dismissal from service is excessive and thus illegal and unjustified. The Respondent No.2 was thus entitled to be reinstated with full back wages.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the mill is closed since 30th November, 1996, as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, so no order as to reinstatement with back wages can be passed and only, if at all, compensation can be awarded. In this regard the factor that the Respondent No.2 had been working for a limited period and has been getting wages under 17-B from the date of award to the date of superannuation be also considered.