BHAGAT PUNJA BAGUL Vs. CEAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Appeal, the appellant workman is challenging the common judgment dated 13th August, 1999, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge had disposed of both the Writ Petition No. 887 of 1997 filed by the Employer as well as the Writ Petition No. 1824 of 1997 filed by the Workman i.e. to say, that both the Employer and Employee were aggrieved by the Award dated 31st March, 1997, passed by the Third Labour Court, Mumbai. By the said Award, the Labour Court had directed the Employer to provide some suitable post taking into consideration his ailment. By the said Award, the Labour Court had also held that the Workman was not entitled to his back wages since the mis-conduct against him was proved. Aggrieved thereby, the Employer and the Employee moved this Court before the learned Single Judge, the employee seeking backwages, and the employer seeking to challenge the order directing the reinstatement of the Workman on some suitable post, considering the ailment of the workman.

(2.) We have perused the Award dated 31st March, 1997 passed by the Labour Court as well as the judgment dated 13th August, 1999, passed by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) The brief facts are, that the appellant workman was working in one of the departments of the employer known as Band Building Department. Earlier, he used to work for Passenger Tyre Building Department. It appears that in both the departments, the appellant workman was required to use his feet to rotate drums with his legs. Similarly, in Band Building Department, the workman was required to use his feet to squeeze the fabric on the drums using the foot pedal. The present workman was charge-sheeted for mis-conduct on the ground of giving less production and the appellant-workman could only achieve 39% of the norms fixed by the Company. The Labour Court had perused the entire evidence and record and also found that three Doctors had certified that the appellant workman was suffering from varicose-veins on his both legs and the said ailment appeared to be an occupational hazard. It also indicated that the workman may need surgery to achieve less suffering from varicose-veins. The Labour Court had categorically given a finding that though the mis-conduct was not willful, it was a mis-conduct since if an employee is unable to give production as per the norms, even it may be due to disease, still it amounts to mis-conduct under the Standing Order 24(c) of the Model Standing Orders. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court had adopted a humanitarian approach and had directed that the appellant workman be absorbed in some suitable post taking into consideration all his ailment, however declined to grant any backwages, since the mis-conduct was clearly proved as per the Standing Order 24(c) of the Model Standing Orders.