LUCAS INDIA SERVICE LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ appeals arise out of the dispute referred to the Labour Court, Madras, in I. D. No. 22 of 1991, for adjudication between the management of Lucas India Service Ltd. , Madras, and its employee one Syed Mazharuddin. For the sake of convenience, they will be referred to as "the management" and "the employee", respectively, in the course of this judgment. The appellant, in W. A. No. 1372 of 1993, is the management and the appellant, in W. A. No. 432 of 1994, is the employee. As the parties and the points involved in both the writ appeals are common, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE employee joined the services of the management at Madras and was transferred to Bangalore by order dated November 26, 1984. The order was to take effect from January 2, 1985. The employee without obeying the said order of transfer challenged it in the civil court by filing O. S. No. 121 of 1985, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The said suit was dismissed on October 3, 1985. Thereafter, the employee was asked to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for disobeying the order of transfer. By a letter dated November 5, 1985, the employee was asked to report at Bangalore, within ten days from the date of receipt of the letter and also to submit his explanation for the show-cause notice. The employee sent a reply on November 18, 1985, stating that he was not able to report at Bangalore, due to his peculiar family circumstances. Thereafter, the management proceeded to conduct an enquiry through a retired District Judge. After conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his findings on January 4, 1986, holding that the charges framed against the employee have been proved. Thereafter, a second show case notice was sent to the employee on January 20, 1986. After getting the explanation from the employee, the management, by their order dated December 28, 1986, dismissed the employee from their service. In the above circumstances, an industrial dispute was raised and it was referred to the Labour Court Madras, and it was taken on file as I. D. No. 22 of 1991. Before the Labour Court, the parties have proceeded only on the question whether the non-consideration of the past record of service of the employee would vitiate the disciplinary proceedings and the order of dismissal and whether the punishment of dismissal imposed on the employee was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct alleged against the employee. The Labour Court, on a consideration of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the dismissal of the employee from service cannot be said to be erroneous. However, the Labour Court found that the employee did not join service at Bangalore only because of his family circumstances. The Labour Court also found that the management should not have dismissed the employee from service without giving him any monetary benefit. Consequently, the Labour Court passed an award on May 19, 1992, holding that the order of dismissal dated February 28, 1986, passed by the management, dismissing the employee from their service is correct. However, the Labour Court found that the order of dismissal dated February 28, 1986, passed by the management without giving any monetary benefit to the employee is not correct. Consequently, the Labour Court directed the management to pay the salary with attendant benfits to the employee from the date of dismissal, namely, February 28, 1986, till the date of the award of the Labour Court.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the award of the Labour Court, directing the management to pay the salary of the employee from the date of his dismissal to the date of the award of the Labour Court, the management filed W. P. No. 11799 of 1992. On the other hand, the employee, aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, holding that the order of dismissal dated February 28, 1986, passed by the management is correct, filed Writ Petition No. 20108 of 1992.