PRADIP KHIMAJI CHAWDA Vs. MAHATMA GANDHI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these cross petitions, the Award of the Labour Court is challenged whereby 40 months, wages were directed to be paid to the workman, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5717 of 1995 and respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 6537 of 1995. These are the cross petitions by the workman and the employer, who is the respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 5717 of 1995 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6537 of 1995.

(2.) THE workman was employed as a Sweeper with the respondent-employer w. e. f. 1-7-1978. A charge-sheet was issued on 24-9-1987 for misconduct of misbehaving on the premises of the respondent under intoxication and for talking arrogantly with the night supervisor. Not being satisfied with the explanation given by the workman, the respondent-employer (hereinafter referred to as the hospital) held an enquiry on 1-2-1988. The workman was issued an order of termination stating that his services were no more required by the hospital with effect from the next date. One months wages in lieu of notice were to be paid to him. Being aggrieved by this order, the workman approached the machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act and a reference was made for adjudication of the dispute. The Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted by the hospital against the workman was not fair and proper and, therefore, the hospital was given an opportunity to prove the charge against the workman.

(3.) THIS obviously means the charge against the workman was confined to the charge-sheet dated 24-9-1987 wherein the allegation was that the workman was intoxicated and had shouted in the hospital premises and had misbehaved with the staff supervisor. Evidence was thereafter led by the hospital of the Matron, who was working at the relevant period in the hospital, the Head of the Security Department, Sister-in-charge and one of the Staff nurses. However, the two night supervisors with whom the workman had allegedly misbehaved by talking arrogantly under intoxication have not been examined before the Labour Court. The Labour Court on the basis of the evidence recorded came to the conclusion that the misconduct as contained in the charge-sheet dated 24-9-1987 was not proved. The Labour Court held, however, that in view of the past service record of the workman, he is not entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages and instead directed the hospital to pay 40 months wages to the workman. Taking exception to this Award, the workman and the hospital challenged the same by filing the present writ petition. The workman has unfortunately passed away during the pendency of these writ petitions and his legal representatives are now parties before me.