JITENDRA B MEHTA Vs. MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 20.6.2006, this petition was disposed of as withdrawn with a liberty in favour of petitioner to approach the concerned labour court. However, pursuant to order passed by this court today in MCA NO. 1937 of 2006, said order of this court dated 20.6.2006 was recalled and this petition was restored on the files of this court and was argued by the learned advocates for the parties today itself.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Desai for petitioner and Mr. Clerk for respondent. Petitioner has challenged two orders passed by the labour court/industrial court. Labour court has decided T Application no. 103 of 1995 dated 18.2.2005. Labour Court Ahmedabad has rejected application. Thereafter, appeal was preferred by petitioner before the industrial court being Appeal (IC) NO. 20 of 2005 and it was then dismissed by the Industrial Court on 28.11.2005.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Desai submitted that under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, labour court is also having powers similar to the powers under sec. 11A of the ID Act, 1947. He also submits that there is no provision of retrenchment and lay off in BIR Act, 1946 and yet section25F, G and H of the ID Act,1947 are applicable to the establishment which is covered by the provisions of the BIR Act, 1946. Similar analogy will apply to section 11A of the Act. According to him, the evidence led before the labour court by the respective parties has not been properly examined or appreciated by the labour court. According to him, the issue as to whether the punishment is harsh or not has not at all been examined by the labour court. However, he has denied that the misconduct alleged against him has been established on the basis of the departmental inquiry. He also submitted that no doubt there is serious misconduct committed by the workman but the court should have to consider the question of punishment after considering his past record. Therefore, according to him, labour court has committed error and the industrial court has also erred in not appreciating the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner.