EKNATH LAXMAN PARAB Vs. ALKEN LABORATORIES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Originally the petitioner had filed the present petition challenging the award and order dated 30th Nov., 1994 passed by the Labour Court in Reference IDA No. 221 of 1989 in the industrial dispute referred be the State Government for adjudication under section 10(1) read with section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for reinstatement with full back-wages and continuity of service. It appears that during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner expired on 8th April, 2001 in an accident. The daughter of the deceased petitioner claiming to be the only major legal heir of the deceased petitioner, has filed a civil application which is allowed by me to-day to bring her on record of the petition. The civil application is filed by the daughter of the original petitioner as the wife of the original petitioner had predeceased him. The daughter of the petitioner has one younger brother, and one younger sister, both minors.

(2.) There is no dispute that pursuant to a charge sheet dated 29th Nov. 1980, served on the deceased petitioner, a domestic enquiry was held by the respondent company and on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the deceased petitioner was discharged from employment by an order dated 15th Oct., 1982. There is no dispute that the enquiry was not challenged nor were the findings of the enquiry officer. The matter proceeded before the labour court on the question of punishment only. As there was no challenge to the fairness and propriety of the enquiry, including the report of the enquiry officer, the labour court considered the question of proportionality of the punishment of discharge imposed on the deceased petitioner. The labour court has in its award considered all the facts and circumstances and even the case law cited before it and has come to conclusion that the order of punishment by way of discharge could not be interfered with. The learned Judge has discussed the charges levelled against the deceased petitioner, which according to him, were serious and warranted the maximum punishment of dismissal, though the respondent company had taken a lenient view by imposing the punishment of discharge.

(3.) I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned award of the labour court. The labour court has applied its mind and considered all the facts and circumstances and the gravity of the charges levelled against the deceased petitioner. It appears that the labour court has considered as many as 20 decisions cited before it and finally concluded that the order of discharge of the deceased petitioner was proper and legal and no interference was warranted within its jurisdiction under Industrial Disputes Act.