FORCE MOTORS LTD Vs. SHANTILAL HUKUMCHAND SANCHETI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent.

(2.) Once again the vexed question as to what could be considered as an incidental issue in an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short "the I.D. Act"), arises for determination in the present Petition.

(3.) The first respondent, (hereinafter referred to as "the workman"), was employed with the petitioner, (hereinafter referred to as "the Company"), from 5th October, 1970. He was recruited as a "Junior Clerk" in the Traffic Department. He was later reWP/ 2397/2010 designated as a "Senior Assistant" on 1st November, 1979. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Stores Department on 14th January, 1980. The Company dismissed the workman on 7th August, 1982 for having committed gross misconduct of insubordination and disobedience. Aggrieved by that order, the workman preferred Complaint (ULP) No.51 of 1988, which was allowed partly by the Labour Court, Pune. The Company was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and to pay him 50% of his backwages by the order of the Labour Court dated 27th September, 1988. Both the workman as well as the Company preferred Revision Applications before the Industrial Court, Pune. By an order dated 1st March, 1993, the Industrial Court allowed the Revision Application of the workman and granted him full backwages.