TORRENT POWER LTD, SURAT Vs. VIRAF E DARUWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is made by the employer to the award passed by the Labour Court, Surat in T.Application No.160 of 2000 dated 23.04.2004 and the order passed by the Industrial Court, Surat in Appeal (IC) No. 7 of 2004 dated 05.12.2013. The Labour Court had held that the action of the petitioner employer of terminating the service of the respondent employee on 15.12.1999 was illegal. The Labour Court had ordered the reinstatement of the employee in service, with all consequential benefits. The said award was challenged by the employer before the Industrial Court. The said Appeal is partly allowed by the Industrial Court. The direction of the Labour Court qua reinstatement of the employee in service is not interfered with by the Industrial Court, but the direction qua consequential benefits including back wages is interfered to the extent that, instead of full back wages, the employee be paid lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ - towards back wages.

(2.) MR .Kamal Trivedi, learned senior advocate for the petitioner employer has submitted that, the termination of service of the respondent was on the ground of loss of confidence of the employer and under these circumstances, the Labour Court and the Industrial Court ought not to have interfered in the matter, on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent and that the termination order was in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner employer has taken this Court through the material on record and has submitted that, the matter requires consideration by this Court and the petition be admitted. It is also submitted that, during the pendency of this petition, the impugned orders be stayed. Reliance is placed on the following decisions of Honourable the Supreme Court of India in support of his contention.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr.A.K.Clerk, learned advocate for contesting respondent - employee has submitted that, it was the case of the petitioner employer itself before the Courts below that, the termination of service of the employee was necessitated, since according to the employer, the employee had committed gross misconduct. It is submitted that the said misconduct was alleged to be financial irregularity, on some hear -say material. It is submitted that, on one hand, the employer alleges serious misconduct against the employee, that too on some hear -say material, and at the same time, he is not ready even to hear the employee on that count. It is submitted that under these circumstances the so -called loss of confidence was only the mask put on by the employer, which is rightly interfered with by the Labour Court and the same is duly confirmed by the Industrial Court in Appeal and therefore this Court may not interfere in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below.