AHMEDABAD ADVANCE MILL CO Vs. CHATURBHAI RANCHHODBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Civil Application is to quash and set aside both the orders passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court and also to confirm the order of termination passed by the petitioner Mill against the respondent herein.

(2.) The short facts in this case are that the respondent was working in the petitioner Mill for more than 40 years. On 17-3-1980 the petitioner sic respondent) picked up a quarrel with Bhavsar who is the Supervisor in one of the departments of the Mill and used abusive words against him. Ultimately a chargesheet was framed against the respondent and enquiry was conducted. It was found thai. the respondent used filthy language against the Supervisor and had committed the offence with which he was charged for. The management ultimately dismissed him from service on 22-3-1980.

(3.) When the matter went to the Labour Court the Labour Court held that the enquiry held by the management was perfect both legally and procedurally and that the respondent had committed the offence with which he was charged for. The Labour Court thought it fit to hear on the question of punishment awarded by the management. On this point the Labour Court heard the arguments and rejected the prayer for reinstatement advanced on behalf of the respondent herein. Nevertheless the labour Court observed: It is true that the applicant has resorted to indiscipline of high nature by using the words against Shri Bhavsar which I have reproduced above and which words have entailed his dismissal from service by the Mills Company vide the order Ex. 12 dated 22-3-1980. After observing so. the Labour Court opined that the order of dismissal should be substituted by direction that the respondent herein should be paid all his benefits as if he was retrenched from service on 31-19-1989. This modified punishment the Labour Court wanted to impose was termed as serving the ends of justice. The order of the Labour Court finally states that the respondent is entitled to the retrenchment compensation computing the benefits as if the respondent was retrenched on 31-12-1982. In his order we are not able to find any reasoning given by the Labour Court for modifying he punishment except stating that the modification in punishment will serve the ends of justice.