RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. MANJIBHAI N. SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 17/3/2020 passed below Exh.11 by the Ld. Industrial Court, Ahmedabad in Appeal (I.C.) No.7 of 2014 in T Application No. 291 of 1994. Learned industrial court, by way of the impugned order has set aside the order dtd. 7/4/2020 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in the T. Application and also the Discharge Order dtd. 2/4/1994 by which the respondent was discharged from the petitioner Company. The Labour Court, vide its order dtd. 7/4/2014 had partly allowed the Application filed by the Respondent and had held that the punishment of compulsory retirement should be imposed upon the Respondent instead of discharge and had accordingly, modified the said punishment. The learned Industrial Court, by way of impugned Order, has directed the Petitioner Company to pay 25% back wages for the period between the date of discharge and the date of superannuation of the Respondent and also to pay benefits to the Respondent which he is entitled to after the retirement.

(3.) The gist of the case is that the respondent was appointed as a permanent employee in the printing and folding department of the textile division of the petitioner company. The respondent was in habit of remaining absent on various occasions during the period between 1979 and 1988 for which warning notices were served to the respondent. On some of the occasions, respondent was also suspended for the misconduct of absenteeism as the respondent did not improve his conduct despite reprimanding several times. Petitioner issued various show cause notices dtd. 10/9/1993, 2/10/1993, 29/10/1993, 8/12/1993 and 24/1/1994. The inquiry was also conducted and as per the findings arrived by the Inquiry Officer dtd. 14/12/1993 and 24/12/1993 charges of unauthorised absence against the respondent were proved. Respondent did not participate in the departmental proceedings. The petitioner has also conducted a separate inquiry with regard to the show cause notice dtd. 29/10/1993 wherein, the respondent remained present and gave statement on 31/1/1994 admitting the unauthorized absence offering the explanation of ill health. The Inquiry Officer vide his finding dtd. 2/4/1994 held that the charges proved, qua the show cause notice dtd. 29/10/1993. Pursuant to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer vide order dtd. 27/4/1994, challenging the dismissal order, the notice came to be issued by the respondent on 10/7/1994 under Sec. 42 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the "BIR Act") alleging that the discharge order issued by the petitioner is illegal and reinstatement was claimed with full back wages and all the consequential benefits.