RAMCHANDRA KALE Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, there is a challenge to the judgment and order made by the Industrial Court on 22.08.1995 in Revision ULP No. 6/1992 confirming the judgment and order made by the Labour Court, Nagpur in Complaint ULP No. 761/1988 decided on 18.12.1991 refusing the award of backwages to the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Jamal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, made the following submissions. The petitioner was sanctioned special leave with pay from 12.06.1986 to 01.10.1986 by the respondent-employer and he also received the sickness benefits for the period of illness as is clear from an order made by Works Manager, S.T. Central Workshop, Nagpur on 18.10.1986 (Annexure 'M'with this petition). The charge-sheet was given to him on 13.03.1986 and thereafter a show cause notice was given to him on 22.6.1986. Finally, the respondent-employer issued dismissal order pursuance to the said show cause notice on 09.03.1987. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner was on duly sanctioned leave and had received the sickness benefits for the said illness in accordance with the provisions of section 73(1) and (2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 neither any charge-sheet could have been issued to him nor any show cause notice nor dismissal order could have been issued as provisions of section 73 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, have been held to be mandatory and the charge-sheet, notice and dismissal order become void.

(3.) Continuing his arguments, Mr. Jamal argued that since the dismissal order of the petitioner itself is rendered void, the petitioner could not have been deprived of the backwages for the period from 09.03.1987 till 15.03.1990 as has been done by the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court. The learned Counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Employees ofM/s. Hindustan Tin Works Put. Ltd. and others, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 75, for claiming full back wages and another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Buckingham & Carnatic Co. Vs. Venkatayya, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1272.