JYOTI LIMITED Vs. M H PADHIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these petitions, the Award passed by the Labour Court, Baroda, in Reference (LCB) No.655 of 1986 dated 28.11.1995 is challenged by the employer as well as workman. The Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service and has denied backwages of interim period. The employer has challenged the direction of reinstatement and workman has challenged denial of backwages for interim period.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Thaker appears for M/s.Jyoti Limited and learned advocate Mr.R.D.Rawal appears for workman. Mr.Thaker submits that once legality and validity of departmental inquiry has not been challenged and purshis to that effect has been filed by workman before the Labour Court, then it amounts acceptance of findings recorded in the inquiry and the Labour Court has considered the question of punishment. He further submitted that the Labour Court has rejected the contention of the workman that he was a trade unionist leader and protected workman. Mr.Thaker also submitted that in past also, similar misconducts were committed by the workman and only on the ground that punishment is disproportionate, the Labour Court granted reinstatement with continuity of service. He submitted that the Company lost confidence on the workman as he was labitually committing misconducts while working with the company. Therefore, according to him, Labour Court has committed gross error in granting reinstatement in favour of workman. Mr.Thaker also vehemently submits that there was no justification in granting reinstatement by the Labour Court as the Labour Court has not given any reason in support of granting relief of reinstatement.

(3.) As against this, Mr.Rawal, learned counsel appearing for the workman, submitted that the Labour Court has committed gross error in denying total backwages for interim period by way of punishment and therefore, it is harsh to deny total backwages to the workman when misconduct is minor in nature. He also submitted that merely admitting legality and validity of inquiry does not amount to accepting findings given by the inquiry officer, therefore, the Labour Court has committed gross error in deciding the Reference while accepting the findings which were challenged by the workman before the Labour Court. He also submitted that in detail, written submissions were made before the Labour Court, but the same have not been properly dealt with by the Labour Court, therefore, according to him, denial of total backwages of interim period is a gross error committed by the Labour Court which requires interference by this Court. He also again emphasized that there was no past record of the workman which required extreme penalty of dismissal.