HIMADRI TEXTILE MILLS Vs. ASADUDDIN QURESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Unit of National Textile Corporation (for short, 'NTC') (Gujarat) Limited, Ahmedabad, which was engaged in the activity of manufacturing textile goods. The petitioner-Unit is not carrying on any any manufacturing activity since 26.01.2001. NTC has been declared as a sick industrial undertaking under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, ('SICA' in brief) and the case of the petitioner-Unit was registered as Case No. PSUC 535/ 1992 with the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (herein after referred to as, 'the BIFR') and Industrial Development Bank of India (for short, 'IDBI')was appointed as operating agency to formulate a revival scheme. The petitioner-Unit challenges the order dated 16.10.2006 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad, in Appeal (IC) No. 30 of 2004 and in Appeal (IC) No. 52 of 2005, whereby, the Industrial Court rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner-Unit, whereas, partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Respondent, herein.

(2.) The respondent was appointed as 'Trainee Assistant Chemist' in Jupiter Textile Mills, Ahmedabad. On 01.01.1978, the Respondent was confirmed on the post of Investigator. On 11.07.1984, the Respondent was transferred to Himadri Textile Mills, Ahmedabad, which is also a unit of NTC as Investigator. The Respondent objected to such transfer and therefore, challenged the same by filing Reference No. 1104 of 1984 before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. The stay application of the Respondent was rejected by it on 27.07.1984.

(3.) In the meantime, the Respondent had also preferred a petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No. 4911 of 1985, challenging his transfer, which came to be rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.09.1985. However, while so doing, it expedited the hearing of Reference No. 1104 of 1984. While the Reference filed by the Respondent, challenging his transfer to the petitioner-Unit was pending, on the ground of the alleged mis- conduct, a show-cause notice dated 14/15.09.1984 was issued to the Respondent. It was alleged by the petitioner-Unit that the Respondent was discharging his duties carelessly. According to the petitioner-Unit, since, the Respondent continued to work in the same manner, two other show-cause notices dated 21.08.1985 and 22.02.1986 came to be issued to the Respondent. The respondent did not reply to the show-cause notices. Therefore, the petitioner-Unit issued the order of suspension of the Respondent and a departmental inquiry was conducted against him, wherein, all the charges levelled against the Respondent were held to have been proved. On the strength of the report of the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner-Unit dismissed the Respondent from service vide order dated 26.04.1986.