MULJIBHAI PATEL UROLOGICAL HOSPITAL Vs. CHATURBHAI N HARIJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The employer, being aggrieved by the award dated 6th October, 1995 passed by the learned Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No.357 of 1993, is before this Court with a submission that the learned Court below was absolutely unjustified in directing reinstatement of the workmen with 60% back-wages.

(2.) The short facts necessary for disposal of the present Writ Application are that the present petitioner is a charitable institution, which is running a hospital. For conducting smooth work, it had employed some Class-IV employees. Much before the present matter came before the Court, the parties entered into a settlement that so long as the settlement continues in existence, the Class-IV employees would not proceed on strike taking into consideration that the Establishment is a charitable institution. However, the Class-IV employees went on a strike on 7th November, 1992 and continued to abstain from work upto 16th November, 1992. On 14th November, 1992, some show cause notices were issued to the workmen to resume duties. Most of the employees came and joined the work on 17th November, 1992, but, the respondents, it appears from the claim, were not asked to join the duties. However, they were issued charge-sheets on the ground that they instigated other workers and they were authors of the strike, therefore, why they be not terminated from the services. It would also be worth noting that the persons, who joined back the duties on 17th November, 1992, gave to the management in writing that they never wanted to proceed on strike, but, the present three respondents did not allow them to join the work. After conducting the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Officer recorded the finding that the three respondents were authors of the strike, they instigated the workers to proceed on strike and they did not allow the said workers to join/resume the duties; they were, accordingly, ordered to be terminated. Being aggrieved by the said termination, the respondents-workmen came to the learned Labour Court, they submitted that they were discriminated, other workmen were allowed to resume duties and no action was taken against others and as the three respondents, as a unit, were singled out and terminated, they were entitled to be reinstated with back-wages.

(3.) Shri Paritosh Calla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Inquiry Officer has recorded a finding that the respondents instigated other workers and did not allow them to join the work. According to him, if some action is taken against the workmen or the persons, who were guilty of grave misconduct, then, such an action could not be set aside by the learned Court below on the ground of discrimination. He also submitted that award of 60% back-wages, in the set of circumstances, is illegal and bad.