SCOOTER INDIA LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the award dated September 23, 1991 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lucknow for directing the petitioner-Company to reinstate the opposite party No. 2 in service and pay him half of the back wages subject to adjustment of the payment received for leave travelling and three increments were ordered to be withheld.

(2.) The opposite party No. 2 was a workman of the petitioner. He was granted leave travel concession for himself and for his family members during the year 1982-83 and he represented that his family travelled on May 1, 1982 by Railway from Lucknow to Bombay V.T. but on inquiry, it was found that no ticket was issued from Lucknow Station to any person for journey from Lucknow to Bombay V. T. Therefore, the petitioner was chargesheeted and on the domestic inquiry held against him, he was found guilty and consequently, his services were dismissed on February 28, 1986. The opposite party No. 2 denied the charge and pleaded that several workmen of the Company were also chargesheeted but they were not punished at all and as such, the dismissal order passed against him suffers from the vice of discrimination. Then, the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal (6), Lucknow which after hearing and on perusal of the record, recorded the findings that the domestic inquiry does not suffer from any infirmity and the findings cannot be said to be perverse. Thereafter, this matter was transferred to the Labour Court, Lucknow which was heard by giving opportunity to both the parties. The finding of the Industrial Tribunal as well as that of the Inquiry Officer was challenged by the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 on the ground that no opportunity was given to him to defend himself. However, the learned Labour Court rejected this contention but finding that there has been discrimination in the matter of punishment and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zilajeet Pal, it ordered reinstatement and reduced his punishment to withholding three increments and half of the back wages.

(3.) The opposite party No. 2 has contested this writ petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr.S.C. Misra and the opposite party No. 2 in person and perused the record.