DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Vs. KASAMBHAI N. SHAIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is against the judgment dated 22.6.2005 passed by learned Single Judge in the petition preferred by the appellant against the award dated 3.7.1998 made by the Labour Court, whereby the Labour Court ordered the appellant to pay 50% of back wages for the period from 7.4.1986 to the date on which the respondent reached to the age of his superannuation. The Labour Court has observed that since the respondent has reached the age of superannuation, no order for his reinstatement is passed.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. R.A. Mishra for the appellant submitted that the respondent had stopped coming on duty from 17.9.1974, he was not even available at the headquarter and therefore, departmental inquiry was initiated against him for remaining unauthorized absent from duty. Mr. Mishra submitted that in the inquiry proceedings, the respondent had clearly stated that he was not available at his headquarter and he had no reason for remaining absent from duty. Mr. Mishra submitted that in regular departmental inquiry, charge of remaining absent from duty was proved against the respondent and on that basis, he was dismissed from service. Mr. Mishra submitted that though against the order of dismissal passed under the statutory Rules, reference under the Industrial Disputes Act was not competent, the respondent raised industrial dispute. Mr. Mishra submitted that though departmental inquiry was not challenged before the Labour Court and though reference was raised after a period of 12 years, the Labour Court passed the above-referred order in favour of the respondent which was not permissible. Mr. Mishra submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have confirmed such order of the Labour Court and given further direction for payment of dues as per the award of the Labour Court.

(3.) As against the above arguments, learned advocate Mr. I.S. Superhia submitted that the appeal before this Court is not maintainable. Mr. Supehia submitted that the Labour Court has found that no evidence on the issue of departmental inquiry was produced before the Labour Court and that considering the nature of charge of remaining absent from duty, punishment was on higher side. Mr. Supehia submitted that the Labour Court has exercised its discretion only for award of back wages from the date of reference till the respondent reached his superannuation and since such powers were available with the Labour Court, it cannot be said that the Labour Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction. Mr. Supehia submitted that since the appellant did not produce any evidence to the effect that the respondent could raise dispute as a workman before the Labour Court and since no other evidence as regards departmental proceedings was produced before the Labour Court, the learned Single Judge has rightly confirmed the order of the Labour Court and committed no error in issuing necessary direction to the appellant to comply with the directions issued by the Labour Court.