WESTERN INDIA AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION Vs. GENERAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Association is registered under section 25 of the Companies Act 1956 and under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act 1948. The petitioner has set out in the petition in detail the services rendered by it. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award of the labour court held that the impugned termination order was not discharge simpliciter but was a punitive order. The labour court also decided that the enquiry held by the petitioner was not fair and proper. The reference is pending before the Labour Court for adjudication of the propriety and legality of the impugned order of termination on merits.

(2.) IT appears that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties the labour court framed three issues which were answered as stated hereinbefore. It further appears that as a sequetal of the enquiry having not been held fair and proper, the petitioner was put at the stage of adducing evidence before the labour court to justify its action of discharge simpliciter which was held to be punitive, as it alleged loss of confidence in the respondents - employees. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award of the labour court the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner its enquiry was fair and proper and therefore, there was no question of leading any fresh evidence on the merits before the labour court.

(3.) BOTH the learned Counsel have taken me extensively through the proceeding including the evidence before the labour court and also before the enquiry officer. At this stage itself, it may be clarified that before the labour court, the petitioner not only relied upon the enquiry held against the two employees before issuing the discharge order and the findings of the enquiry officer, the petitioner also adduced its oral and documentary evidence in support of the discharge order before the labour court. The respondent employees also examined themselves before the labour court in rebuttal.