BATRA HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF CH ASHI RAM BATRA PUBLIC CHARITABLE Vs. BISWAMBAR NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6th April, 2011 passed by the Labour Court In the petition under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, filed before it by the respondent for challenging termination of his services by the petitioner. Vide that order application for grant of some interim relief to the respondent has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay to him seventy-five per cent of his last drawn salary of Rs. 10,854 during the pendency of the claim petition from the date of termination of his services.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no doubt that the labour Court can grant an interim relief during the pendency of the proceedings before it for the adjudication of an industrial dispute either referred to it by the appropriate government or raised directly before it by a workman by filing a petition under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act but before that is done the workman has to show that he has a strong prima facie case. In the present case the petitioner is opposing the grant of interim relief to the respondent on the ground that though he was employed with it, but he was not a workman as defined under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the claim petition itself was not maintainable before the labour Court. It has also been contended that till this controversy regarding the status of the respondent as an industrial workman is established there was no occasion for the labour Court to have granted any interim relief to him. Another contention raised was that the respondent's services had been terminated because of the serious acts of misconduct committed by him during the employment and though no domestic enquiry was conducted in respect of the charges against him but the petitioner has a right to establish even before the labour Court those charges of misconduct, and, therefore for that reason also there is no justification for grant of any interim relief to the respondent. Finally, it was also submitted that, in any event, grant of seventy-five per cent of last drawn wages to the respondent cannot be said to be an interim relief but in fact it is the full relief which has been given to the workman which he may not have got even if he had succeeded finally.

(3.) The respondent has argued his case in person and he has contended that there is no allegation of misconduct in the written statement of the petitioner filed before the labour Court and, therefore, there would be no occasion for the petitioner-management for establishing any misconduct before the Labour Court. It has also been contended that the labour Court's observation that, prima facie, respondent was an industrial worker cannot be said to be wrong because the same has been made after noticing the fact that as per the documents placed on record by the respondent it was clear that though he was designated as an executive at some time during his employment but, in fact, he was assigned the duties by the petitioner itself which were of clerical nature only. It was also submitted by the respondent that this Court in any event cannot go deep into that aspect while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and there is no good reason to interfere with the discretion exercised soundly by the labour Court by awarding him some interim relief.