RAMESH D BHAI Vs. UNITED CATALYST INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Rajesh P. Mankad for the workman and Mr. K.M. Patel with Mr. AR Majmudarx for the employer. In both the petitions, one and the same award passed by the labour court, Baroda in Reference No.263 of 1984 dated 17.1.1995 is challenged. The workman filed Special Civil Application NO.1254 of 1996 against denial of 50 % back wages. By filing special civil application No. 5412 of 1995, the employer has challenged the said award of reinstatement with 50 per cent back wages for intervening period, dated 17.1.1995 wherein this Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R.Calla) has passed following order on 26th September, 1995:

(2.) By impugned award dated 17.1.1995, labour court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 50 per cent back wages for an intervening period with all consequential benefits.

(3.) Before the labour court, vide Exh. 19, 29, 30 and 38, both the parties produced relevant documents on record. Workman was examined vide Exh.15 and reiterated the facts mentioned in his statement of claim. In his deposition before the labour court, the workman made clear statement that he was not having any power to make appointment or to terminate service of any employee and he was also not having any power to sanction leave of any employee. He was working as a Chemist analyst and to direct the workers about production. On the date of incident, , manager as angry with him and that is why, false allegations were made against him and he was insulted by the officer and was informed to get out from the place. Reply given by the workman was received by the company. No departmental inquiry was conducted against him. No written order of termination has been issued against him. As regards letter of apology, it was stated by him that it was given by him because of the fact that Shri Lalajee Sheth instructed him that he will be taken back in service. Accordingly, on that basis, letter of apology was given by him but after giving letter of apology, he was not taken back in service but his services were orally terminated by One Mr. A. Prakash, Officer-in-charge. In his cross examination, he stated that he was working on technical post, catalyst is being used in petrochemical refinery etc., 20 to 25 types of catalysts are being manufactured. When process has to be changed, machine has to be cleaned. He has to do the work of raw materials, testing, process, supervision, temperature maintenance solution and to get the work done by instructing persons assisting him. It is also deposed by him that he remained unemployed but he was helping his brother in his business. It was not stated to him by Lalajee Sheth to give letter of apology but was only informed to meet Mr. A. Prakash. Apology letter was given with hope that the company will continue him in service. Reply was given to the notice dated 8.9.1983. By Exh. 17, oral evidence was closed by the workman. Then, on behalf of the company, one Manager Prakash Dattatrey was examined.