(1.) THE present petition is directed against the judgement and award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCV) No. 168 of 1993, whereby the Labour Court has awarded reinstatement with 50% back -wages. The short facts of the case are that the respondent was working as boiler attendant in the unit of the petitioner. On 15.12.1992 when the pressure of the water in the boiler had gone down, as a result thereof, the boiler had stopped functioning. Thereafter, it was found that the water pump was not functioning. The electrician was called and he found that the wires of the timer were out. He inserted the wires. As a result thereof, the water pump had started functioning, which resulted into inlet of the water in the boiler and the boiler was damaged. Such incident together with one earlier incident was made as a basis for issuance of charge -sheet by the petitioner to the respondent for misconduct of habitual neglect of work, gross or habitual negligence, willful damage to work of the establishment, etc. The charges were denied and the inquiry officer was appointed. Before the inquiry officer, the evidence was led. However, it appears from the record that after the cross -examination of all the witnesses, the inquiry officer recorded the statement of the respondent and asked the question as to whether the respondent is desirous to examine any witness or produce any evidence, which was denied by the respondent. The inquiry should have stopped there, but the inquiry officer, of his own, put certain questions to the respondent and thereafter the inquiry was concluded. The inquiry officer submitted the report, finding guilt of the respondent. Based on the same, the respondent was terminated from service. The dispute was raised under the Industrial Disputes Act, which came to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. Before the Labour Court, the finding of the inquiry officer was not accepted by the respondent workman but the inquiry was accepted. The Labour Court, upon re -appreciation of evidence before the inquiry officer, found that the finding of the inquiry officer was not proper and defective and the Labour Court also found that the incident happened for bona fide mistake on the part of the workman and by not applying appropriate care well in time. The Labour Court found that the punishment for not allowing the salary for the period during which the employee remained unemployed appears to be appropriate. But as there was no evidence on record that he was gainfully employed, 50% back -wages was found to be appropriate. Ultimately, the Labour Court has ordered reinstatement with 50% back -wages Under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court.
(2.) WE have heard Mr. Thakkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondent is served, but none appears on his behalf.
(3.) ON the merits of the petition, the learned Counsel submitted that the finding of the Labour Court is perverse to the record, inasmuch as the evidence, which ought to have been considered by the Labour Court has not been properly considered. It was submitted that the finding of the inquiry officer was proper and Labour Court ought not to have recorded the finding that the conclusion of the inquiry officer is illegal or defective. The learned Counsel alternatively submitted that taking into consideration the facts of the present case, 50% back -wages ought not to have been awarded by the Labour Court.