HAWABI MANSOAR AHMED PATWARI WD/O MANSOOR AHMED NOORMIYA Vs. 7TH LABOUR COURT, ARUN CHAMBERS, TARDEO, BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mansoor Ahmed Noormiya (since deceased) was employed with M/s. Carona Sahu Company Ltd. (nowcarona Limited). For the sake of convenience, We shall refer then as the workman and the employer respectively. The workman was chargesheeted of the misconduct namely: (1) wilful insubordination and disobedience; (ii) wilful slowing down the performance of work and (iii) commission of act of subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment. The Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the aforesaid charges. Before the Enquiry officer the proceedings were held on many dates. The workman was represented by the official of the union of the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union. The evidence was recorded by the Enquiry Officer and by his finding dated 27th December 1982, the Enquiry Officer held that all the charges levelled against the workman stood proved. The Enquiry Officer forwarded the enquiry report. The employer vide order dated 8th January 1983 accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and found that the charge of go-slow being very serious charge and the said charge having been proved, the petitioner was liable to be dismissed from service and, accordingly, by that order the petitioner's services came to be dismissed. The industrial dispute was raised concerning the dismissal of the workman and the conciliation proceedings having resulted in failurei the industrial dispute was referred to the concerned Labour Court for adjudication. Before the Labour Court, the principal issues- were (a) whether the enquiry held against the workman was legal, fair and proper and (b) whether the workman should be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages with effect from 10th January 1983. The Labour Court, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, held by Part 1 Award that the enquiry held against the workman was legal, fair and proper. The Labour Court further held that though there was loss of work on three days, the dismissal of the workman from service was grossly disproportionate and quite harsh. The Labour Court, accordingly set aside the dismissal order dated 4th February 1993 and passed award for reinstatement of the workman with 75% back wages.

(2.) The employer filed the writ petition before this court challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 4th February 1993. The learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 17th February 1997 set aside the award of the Labour Court. It is this order of the learned single Judge which is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) We may notice at this stage that the workman died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives have been brought on record.