GANESH FLOUR MILLS CO LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution questions the validity of an award, dated 24th March, 1969, rendered by the Labour Court, Allahabad.

(2.) THE petitioner company carries on manufacture and sale of vegetable oil products in its factory at Kanpur. The petitioner has provided residential bungalows to its officers, Such officers are also given the facility of domestic servants at the cost of the company. Ram Het, respondent No. 2, was engaged by the petitioner company and was directed to work as a bungalow servant at the house of the Chief Engineer of the company. He used to do the various domestic duties on all the days of the week. With effect from 1st January, 1968, Ram Het, however, absented himself on all Sundays, till 3rd March, 1968, which was also a Sunday. The petitioner company's case is that he also started neglecting his duties and became a slipshod and indisciplined servant. He was charge-sheeted on 4th March, 1968. After a domestic enquiry held by the manager he was found guilty and was dismissed from service with effect from 6th March, 1968.

(3.) IN due course, the State Government referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court: Whether the employers have terminated the service of the workman Sri Ram Het, son of Sri Videshi, Mazdoor, Engineering Department/with effect from 6th March, 1968, legally and, or justifiably? If not, to what relief, if any, is the workman concerned entitled? The Labour Court held that the workman was charged under three counts. Two of the charges were vague and valueless. It was found that the workman concerned was not given an adequate opportunity of meeting the charges. The domestic enquiry was invalid. The Labour Court then went into the merits of the charges. It held that charges Nos. 2 and 3 were vague. The employers did not care to furnish the details even after the finding of the Labour Court on the validity of the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court also relied on the admission of the Chief Engineer that he simply warned Ram Het for his negligence and did not make any complaint, and held that,