SHREENARAYAN KANAIYALAL Vs. ANUP ENGINEERING LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE undisputed facts are simple and eloquent and the question involved as a short one. If an employer who has dismissed a workman without holding any inquiry, justified the dismissal by leading evidence before the Labour Court/industrial Tribunal, whether it will relate back to the date of dismissal order of the employer or will be operative from the date of award of the Labour Court/industrial Tribunal ? In other words, whether in such a case, the workman will be entitled to wages till the award ? The present petitioner (a protected workman) and 21 other workman came to be dismissed from service by identical order dated April 20, 1991 (Annexure B to the petition ). That order itself states that the workman is a representative of a Union and their demand dated January 7, 1991 were pending before the Conciliation Officer. It is alleged that during the pendency of the industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, from 1st April, 1991, obstructions were created in production process and movement of goods and removal of goods outside the factory; there was an atmosphere of gherao, danger and terror and there was an apprehension about the safety of the properties of the company and of customers, traders and safety of officers of the company and production had become impossible. It is further alleged that the petitioner-workman by participating in the aforesaid activities, had committed a grave misconduct and for that grave misconduct, the workman was dismissed from service with immediate effect. It is also stated that he Company reserved the right to prove the misconduct as and when necessary because in the circumstances, it was not possible to hold departmental inquiry.

(2.) THIS dismissal is the subject-matter of Reference (LCA No. 2292 of 1990) for reinstatement with full backwages.

(3.) AFTER about a year, when the hearing of the reference did not progress, an application was made for interim relief for a direction that the employer be directed to pay full salary from the date of dismissal till date of the final award in the Reference. The Labour Court dismissed the application by its judgment and order dated July 26, 1993. Being aggrieved thereby, the workman has come to this Court. It may be stated that this is only a test case. The Company has similarly dismissed 21 other workman. It is stated that six of the 21 workmen have settled the matter with the employer and 15 workmen are still out of employment and without any wages since about two years and nine months.