MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original respondent No.2, since deceased, was working under the petitioner Corporation initially as a casual labourer and on regular basis as Artisan Grade IV on 1.11.1978. Subsequently the workman was placed under suspension on the allegation that he had committed theft by taking away raw materials from the factory i.e., 2 bundles of polythylene twine. A charge memo was issued levelling four charges. The substratum of the charges was to the effect that he had committed theft on 16.11.1986. Domestic enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the findings recorded, the workman was dismissed from service by order dated 22.2.1988. Thereafter the appeal filed by the workman was rejected on 9.5.1989. After a lapse of about two years, the workman raised Industrial Dispute which was numbered as I.D.No.324 of 1991. The Labour Court on the basis of the materials adduced before it came to the conclusion that allegation of theft had not been proved and other charges being depending upon the allegation relating to theft, there is no justification for passing the order of dismissal. Accordingly there was a direction to reinstate the workman with full backwages and continuity of service by award dated 26.3.1996. Thereafter the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) While considering the question of stay and vacate stay applications, an order was passed by the learned single Judge of this Court staying the reinstatement subject to the condition that a sum of Rs.820/- per month should be paid with effect from 1.7.1997 and a sum of Rs.50,000/- should be paid to the second respondent. It was further directed that a further sum of Rs.1 lakh should be deposited in the Bank and the workman was permitted to withdraw the interest.

(3.) The second respondent expired on 15.7.2001 and thereafter on the basis of the petition, substitution has been allowed by order dated 15.3.2002 and by subsequent order the widow of the workman has been permitted to withdraw the interest on the deposited amount. It was also directed at that stage that pendency of the writ petition would not stand in the way of paying provident fund and gratuity to the legal heirs of the workman.