RAJNAGAR TEXTILE MILLS Vs. BHARATBHAI JIVANBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) If misconduct of theft of articles of insignificant value has been held proved, should such misconduct be visited with severe penalty ? In such cases, if the lower courts have, in their discretion, thought it fit not to impose severe punishment, would it be proper for the High Court to interfere in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ? Is it open to the employer not to implement the judgment and order and/or award without obtaining stay or interim relief from the appellate forum or the High Court, as the case may be ? These and other questions as regards the obligation of employer for compliance with the directions given by labour courts, industrial courts and industrial tribunals arise in this petition. These questions may be examined in the background of the facts that follow.

(2.) The petitioner Mill Company is a unit of National Textile Corporation (Gujarat) Ltd.. It has filed this petition challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated May 27, 1992 passed by the labour court in T- application No. 766/83, and confirmed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad, in Appeals (IC) Ho. 48/92 and 42/92 decided on August 12, 1992. By the aforesaid orders it is directed that the workman be reinstated in service on his original post with continuity of service, but without backwagcs.

(3.) The respondent workman was working as Wireman (technician) in the electricity department of the petitioner Mill Company for last about twelve years prior to his dismissal from service on July 23,1983. It was alleged against the workman that he was on duly on March 30th, 1983 in the third shift of the mill company. In the morning of March 31, 1983 when he was going out of the mill premises his person was checked. It was found that he was possessing copper wire and two used minor black electrical implements called overload relay. On the allegation of committing theft of the aforesaid articles he was ordered to be suspended on April 1, 1983 and he remained under suspension upto July 23, 1983 i.e., the date on which he was ordered to be dismissed from service. In the departmental inquiry held against him, the misconduct alleged against the workman was held proved and he was ordered to be dismissed from service.