JAYANTILAL R CHAUHAN Vs. JAMNAGAR FOUNDRY WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Ms. Thakkar for the petitioner and Ms. Pahwa for the respondent in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) In this petition, the petitioner his challenged the award made by the labour court, Jamnagar dated 6.10.1992 in Reference No. 1575 of 1990 and 1592 of 1990 wherein the labour court has rejected the reference of the concerned workman Shri Jayantilal Ramjibhai Chauhan and has partly allowed the reference of the other workman Oghubha Adabha namely Reference (LCJ) No. 1592 of 1990 (Old Reference (LCJ) No. 660 of 1989 and has directed the first party Jamnagar Foundry Works to pay 40 per cent of the back wages to the said workman by treating his service as continuous as his age was of sixty years.

(3.) During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned advocate Ms. Krina Thakkar on behalf of the petitioner that in reality and in substance, there is no much difference agaist pettioner in respect of the charges levelled by the respondents against the petitioner. According to her, It was a mere consequence of degree of aggrerassive mood having some difference between two workman; the petitioner is having aggressive mood in comparision to the other workman Oghubha Adabha. She also submitted that the decision considered by the labour court in the matter VED PRAKASH V. M/s. DELTON CABLE INDIA (P) LTD. repoted in AIR 1984 SC 914 is squarely applicable to the facts the present petitioner but the labour court has not properly appreciated that aspect of the matter. According to her submission, the labour court has erred in not applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision in the facts of the present case, She has submitted the labour court has committed serrious error in not taking into consideration more than 30 years service service record with unblemish past and, therefore, the labour court has committed serious error which is required to be corrected by this court. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa appearing for Mr. P.M.Thakkar for the respondent has submitted that the labour court was right in rejecting the reference of the petitioner after considering the gravity of the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner while considering the references of both the workmen. According to her submission, in the matter of petitioner, it was not a mere use of filthy language but there was some effort made for assault against the superior officer and, therefore, that was rightly considered as a serious misconduct and, therefore, labour court was right in rejecting the reference of the petitioner. It was also submitted by her that once the labour court has exercised the powers under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 after appreciating the facts on record, then, this court cannot exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, according to her submission, there is no substance in this petition and the same is, therefore, required to be dismissed will, costs.