GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LTD Vs. MITHABHAI CHHITUBHAI MAKWANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Jay Amin, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri P.H.Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner establishment, being aggrieved by the award dated 11.1.2000 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharuch, in Reference [L.C.B.] No. 198/90 [old Reference [L.C.B.] No. 595/87] is before this Court with a submission that the award made by the learned court below is patently illegal and is based on surmises and conjectures.

(3.) The short facts, necessary for disposal of the of the present writ application are that the respondent workman was appointed as Helper on 12.7.82 and worked up to the year 1986. In different years, he remained unauthorizedly absent, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to him. On 20.11.86, a charge sheet was served upon the workman, in reply to which, he admitted his wrong but however, submitted that as his mother was mentally sick and bodily infirm and as he was required to discharge social liabilities, he had to go on unauthorized leave. Despite his admission, an inquiry was conducted; witnesses were examined; however, the respondent workman did not cross-examine any witnesses nor led any defence evidence. On 22.11.86, a notice relating to proposed punishment was issued to which the workman replied to in 1987 and prayed for clemency. On 7.2.87, establishment, finding the present to be an extreme case, directed removal of the workman w.e.f. 12.2.87. The workman thereafter got the matter referred to the Labour Court. The workman submitted his claim statement and the present petitioner filed written statement; the parties led evidence and even in the evidence, the workman admitted that he remained on unauthorized absence but he however, submitted that his mother was unwell and as he was the only male member in the family and as he was required to attend his mother, he had to go on unauthorized leave. Even before the Labour Court, he submitted that he had to discharge social and family liabilities, therefore also, he could not regularly work. The Labour Court, after hearing the parties, despite holding that the workman remained unauthorizedly absent, however, held that in view of the explanation submitted by the workman, punishment of removal could not be awarded. It accordingly set aside the punishment and directed reinstatement of the workman with 40% back wages. Being aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner establishment is before this Court.