ION EXCHANGE (INDIA) LTD Vs. R.H.MARATHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was heard and after completion of submissions it was posted for order today. Today, learned counsel Shri Varun K.Patel for the petitioner has filed sick note. The matter was argued by Senior Counsel Shri K.M.Patel with Shri Varun K. Patel. Shri Raval, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that as the matter was argued by Shri K.M. Patel, he inquired of Shir Patel as to whether he may request the Court to pass appropriate order based upon the submissions canvassed. Shri K.M.Patel through Shri Raval submitted that as the arguments are over there is no objection if the order is made today.

(2.) THE petitioner, first party employer in reference being Reference (LCB) No.369/85 renumbered as Reference (LCB) No. 51/90, has approached this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia challenging the order and award dated 08.01.1999, whereunder the Court during the pendency of the reference decided that the inquiry that is disciplinary inquiry held against the workman was illegal and contrary to the provision of law and as it was without compliance with the principle of natural justice, the same was held to be illegal and an opportunity was afforded to the employer for leading evidence as well as the order and award dated 28.05.2002 whereunder ultimately the Labour Court partly allowed the reference and passed an order declaring that as the dismissal of the employee was illegal, but instead of ordering reinstatement in view of the fact that the establishment had offered benefit of voluntary retirement to all other employees on 22.11.1998, ordered that the present employee respondent also be accrued the same benefits and 50% of back wages for the period from the date of dismissal i.e. from 09.01.1985 to 22.11.1998 and Rs. 1,000.00 towards cost.

(3.) THE respondent workman was working as an Operator in the petitioner establishment on account of the workmen's involvement in the union activities, the workman perceived it to be unpalatable to the employer. The workman received charge-sheet on 09.11.1984 containing allegations that on 08.11.1984, he did not comply with the orders issued by superiors and summoned his fellow workmen, union leader to support his cause which resulted into altercation and minor scuffle between the workmen and the superiors for which the workmen was placed under suspension and inquiry was ordered to be held as a result whereof charge- sheet was issued. The workman was called upon to submit his reply. The inquiry ultimately culminated into the order of dismissal dated 09.01.1985, which was subject matter of dispute and the competent authority referred the same for adjudication wherein it was numbered as Reference (LCB) No.369/85 renumbered as Reference (LCB) No. 51/90. The Labour Court, on submission of both the sides decided the issue qua legality and proprietary and appropriateness of the disciplinary proceedings held against the workman and came to the conclusion vide order dated 08.01.1999, exhibit-28, that the inquiry was not conducted in compliance with the principle of natural justice and, therefore, it was legal and hence after observing and holding the same to be illegal, an opportunity of leading evidence was granted to the employer first party and the matter was posted for further hearing. Thereafter, the workman lead evidence. The management participated in the proceeding, but could not lead any further evidences. The management participated and the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the management failed in establishing charges and hence the dismissal order dated 09.01.1985 could not be justified in any manner. However, as it is stated hereinabove, it was noticed that in the interregnum period the management had offered V.R.S. Scheme to other employees with effect from 22.11.1998. The Court instead of ordering reinstatement granted similar benefits to the workman, but granted only 50% back wages and cost of Rs.1,000.00 vide ultimate order and award dated 28.05.2002, which is impugned in this petition along with the order dated 08.01.1999 whereunder the inquiry was held to be illegal and contrary to the principle of natural justice.