KALYAN KARYALAYA Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three analogous writ petitions (being Writ Petition Nos 20351 of 1986, 4624 of 1989 and 7264 of 1989 (hereinafter referred as first, second and third writ petitions respectively), involve similar questions of law, hence it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.

(2.) WHETHER the Kalyan Karyalaya, Gita Press, Gorakhpur is an 'industry' and whether the domestic enquiry having been held to be legal and not vitiated, the punishment of dismissal was correctly reduced and was it justified under the circumstances of the case, are the short questions for determination in these writ petitions.

(3.) SOME factual matrix appear to be imperative. Govind Bhawan Karyalaya is registered under the Societies Registration Act and has its office at 151, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta. The certificate of registration has been renewed from time to time. The object of society is to promote and spread the principles of Hindu religion among the general public, Hindu religious education, the spread the use of pure articles for the protection of Hindu religion, to publish books and articles to further and carry into effect the aforesaid object of the society. The Kalyan Karyalya and Gita Press, Gorakhpur are the units of the Govind Bhawan Karyalaya. Respondent no. 2, the workman was employed in Kalyan Karyalaya, Gorakhpur. The Industrial Employment (standing Orders) Act, 1946 is applicable to the petitioner and it has been adopted In para 11 it mentions about leave, whereas para 22 of the standing Order enumerates acts of omissions which may be treated as misconduct. Para 22 (a) mentions about wilful insubordination or disobedience, whether alone or in combination with another or notice prescribed by law or rules having force of law. (c) inciting while the premises of the industrial establishment any workman to strike w (y) Insubordination malingering, deliberate delaying of production or carryo out of order. Para 23 of the Standing Orders provides that any person who is adjudged to be guilty of misconduct is liable to be summarily dismissed without notice or compensation in lieu of notice. Respondent No. 2 workman raised a dispute that his services were illegally retrenched on 20-9-84 from the employment of the petitioner. The State Government made a reference under section 4 (k) of the Act to the effect whether the termination of service of the workman by the employers by order dated 20-9-84 was valid or legal ? If not, to what benefit/compensation the workman was entitled to get ? the reference was registered as Adjudication Case No. 240 of 1985 by the Labour Court, Gorakhpur. After permitting the employer and the workman to file their written statements evidence was led and, the witnesses were examined. The workman denied the charges and the allegations of misconduct against him. The Labour Court held under the award dated 14-2-89 that even though the charges were proved, the domestic enquiry was not vitiated, but the punishment of termination or retrenchment from service was not justified, and it was reduced to reinstatement with no back wages and during the period Of suspension the workman was entitled to subsistence allowance, Against this ward the present petition have been filed.