BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 06 -011995 passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun in adjudication case NO.1 of 1989.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner IS an undertaking of Government of India engaged in production of heavy electrical equipments and is located at Haridwar. About 10,000 employees are working with the petitioner and their services are regulated by Standing Orders under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The employees who are not in the category of 'workmen' are governed by BHEL (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975. The respondent NO.3 Mr. D.L. Khobragade was initially employed as Electrician in the year 1965 and later promoted as Section Leader and thereafter as Assistant Foreman w.e.f. 25 -06 -1978 in the Electrical Maintenance Department. In the year 1981 his salary was Rs. 1896.53 as Assistant Foreman. On 23 -12 -1980, respondent No.3, Mr. D.L. Khobragade was intercepted at the gate by the security staff while taking away four mercury lamps of the petitioner company from the Factory without any permission. The act of the respondent No.3, as such amounted to theft. The security staff arrested respondent NO.3 and handed him over to the Police. First Information Report was lodged on the same day i.e. 23 -12 -1980 (copy Annexure -1 to the writ petition). The Police registered crime case No. 218 regarding the incident and after trial respondent NO.3 was convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment by Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on 31 -07 -1982. However, he was acquitted by the Appellate Court, giving him benefit of doubt by order dated 06 -11 -1985. Meanwhile, disciplinary proceedings initiated against respondent NO.3 under BHEL (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 were concluded and after serving him charge sheet (copy Annexure -2 to the writ petition) and giving him opportunity of being heard and defended, several witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer and the charge leveled against the respondent No. 3 was found proved. On consideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer (copy Annexure -7 to the writ petition), disciplinary authorities dismissed the respondent NO.3 from service vide order dated 10 -07 -1982 (copy Annexure -8 to the writ petition). After about six years in the year 1988, the respondent NO.3 got moved an application through Haridwar Heavy Electricals Employees' Union (respondent No.4) before Conciliation Officer, Saharanpur for reference of his dispute relating to validity of his dismissal from service, to Labour Court. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court (respondent No.2) after hearing the parties passed the impugned award dated 06 -01 -1995 (copy Annexure -14 to the writ petition) whereby dismissal of Sri Khobragade (respondent No.3) was held to be illegal and it was directed that he be reinstated in service with full back wages. Aggrieved by which the present petition is filed by the employer petitioner alleging that the award of the Labour Court was illegal and against the law.

(3.) THE writ petition is contested by the respondent No.3 who filed his counter affidavit in which para Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the writ petition were admitted. It is also lot disputed that a criminal case was instituted against the answering respondent which ultimately resulted in acquittal. It is also not disputed that disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him and the charge sheet was served but rest of the contents of the writ petition was not admitted as stated in the writ petition. Defending the impugned award of the Labour Court, it is stated that respondent No.3 was a 'the workman' and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute referred to it. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Labour Court rightly found that charges against the answering respondent were not found proved and the punishment awarded against him was liable to be set aside.