NISHABEN BALVANTRAI PATHAK Vs. AUSTEIN ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner workman, being aggrieved by the Award dtd. 3/7/1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No. 104 of 1991 rejecting the Reference, is before this Court with a submission that the court below, despite holding that the termination was illegal, erred in not directing reinstatement and further erred in awarding compensation only.

(2.) SHORT facts necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are that the petitioner workman came to be removed from the services without issuing any chargesheet or inquiry. She came to the Labour Court and submitted that her termination was absolutely illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The respondent establishment appeared before the Labour Court and filed its written statement contending inter-alia that the present petitioner had become a nuisance at the workplace, she was fighting with co-workmen, she was lodging false reports to the Police and was ever misbehaving with the other co-workmen. They also submitted that some of the co-workmen had made complaints against the conduct of the present petitioner and they were justified in discharging her from services. It is to be noted that during the course of the trial, the persons who had made complaints against the present petitioner, were not examined to prove the contents of the complaints. The persons against whom First Information Report was lodged, was also not examined as a witness. However, some officers from the establishment appeared in the witness box and produced the complaints submitting that such complaints were received by the respondent. The petitioner also submitted that the termination was absolutely illegal and was without any rhyme or reason.

(3.) AFTER recording evidence and hearing the parties, learned Labour Court held that from the facts and circumstances of the case, it could be held that the action of the establishment in terminating the services of the workman was illegal. After holding that, it went on observing that the case was relating to morality of the woman, therefore, it would not be just and proper to order reinstatement. It also observed that the workman would be entitled to some compensation.