K B LOKNATHLAMA Vs. MANAGEMENT PONDS INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the award, dated 16.10.2000, made in I.D.No.134 of 1995, passed by the second respondent labour Court and for a consequential direction to the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner as watchman, with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he was appointed as a watchman in the first respondent company, on 6.5.81. THE petitioner has been in service for nearly 14 years without any blemish. It has also been stated that the first respondent factory is situated in 14 acres of land. Only two watchmen were posted at a time, per shift, to guard the entire area. THE watchmen are posted in three shifts. THE first shift was from 6 a.m to 2 p.m. THE second shift was from 2 p.m to 10 p.m and the third shift was from 10 p.m to 6 a.m. Since there were two watchmen per shift, normally, one of them waited near the main gate while the other went around the factory. Since the area to be guarded was huge, lights had been installed at various places in the premises. Only the front portion of the premises had a compound wall and the other portions had only a fence made up of bushes. THE watchmen were provided with torch lights to enable them to go around the factory premises. THEre were tell-tale clocks in six places to enable the watchmen to punch in the time when they pass the clock, so that the movements of the watchmen making the rounds could be constantly monitored.

(3.) DUE to the alleged theft charge memos had been issued to both the watchmen, who were on duty at the time of the alleged incident, with the charges of a) Sleeping while on duty and b) Neglect or carelessness resulting in damage to Company's property or equipment. An enquiry had been conducted and the petitioner had been dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute, which was taken on file by the second respondent Labour Court, as I.D.No.134 of 1995. By an award, dated 16.10.2000, the Labour Court had confirmed the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent management, dismissing the petitioner from service.