HEM PANT Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Writ Petition No.162 (MS) of 2006 was appointed in H.M.T. Watch Factory, Ranibagh, Nainital on 25.10.1985 and he joined the services on 05.11.1985. Petitioner faced disciplinary proceedings, as he remained absent without leave on several occasions between 1992 to 1994. The period of days when the petitioner remained absent are as follows:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_16_LAWS(UTN)7_2014_1.html</FRM>

(2.) As stated in Writ Petition filed by the General Manager, H.M.T. Watch Factory i.e. Writ Petition No.1329 (MS) of 2005, the fact that the petitioner remained absent during the aforesaid period has not been denied by the workman. He faced disciplinary proceedings and subsequently his services were terminated vide order dated 24.06.1995, passed by the General Manager. The petitioner/workman, being aggrieved, raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Haldwani, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 27 of 1997. The Labour Court, Haldwani after hearing both the parties and dealing with the evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner/workman had remained absent during the period when he has been alleged. However, the Labour Court, on the question of punishment, came to the conclusion that the punishment of termination from service is disproportionate to the conduct and, thereafter, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner/workman in service with continuity from the date of termination, though without back wages.

(3.) This award has also been challenged by the petitioner/workman in Writ Petition No.162 (MS) of 2005, claiming that under the circumstances, he ought to have been reinstated with full back wages and the award of the Labour Court is bad to that extent. This award has been challenged both by the workman as well as the employer, respectively.