SUBHASH RAMCHANDRA DUMBRE Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No. 24 of 1995. By the said judgment and order dated 7th February, 1996, the Industrial Court was pleased to allow the revision application filed by the respondent herein and the set aside the order passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 191 of 1987 whereby the Labour Court had directed them to reinstate the complainant to his original post with continuity of service and back wages.

(2.) Brief facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was employed by respondent No. 1. His services, however, were terminated by order dated 25th September, 1985 on the ground of his absence from duty. The petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint of unfair labour practices. The Labour Court allowed the complaint and held that no inquiry had been held by the respondent into the misconduct of absence from duty and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself and as such, therefore, the order of termination was illegal. The Labour Court, however, held that the bank did not get the petitioner examined by a doctor. The reason which was given for termination of service was absence from duty for 71 days during the period from 1.7.84 to 11.10.84 and also for the absence from duty for the period from 1989-80 to 1983-84 for 610 days. The Labour Court held that the termination of the petitioner on the ground of continued absence amounted to a stigma and as such inquiry was not conducted. The Labour Court also further held that the respondent had not followed the procedure before issuing letter of termination of getting the complainant medically checked by the doctor appointed by the respondent. Further, it was mentioned in the order that the complainant was not intimated about the rejection of leave at any point of time.

(3.) Shri Nargolkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Industrial Court had committed an error of law which is apparent on the face of record. He submitted that the Industrial Court had reappreciated the evidence and had allowed the revision application and therefore, the said order was without jurisdiction since the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion from the one which had been reached by the Labour Court. He further submitted that even assuming that the Industrial Court had right to reappreciate the evidence, the only option which was available for the Industrial Court was to remand the matter back. In support of the said submission, he relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vikas Textiles Vs. Sarva Shramik Sangh,1990 1 CLR 257 and the judgment in the case of Anand Bihari and others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur through its Managing Director and another, 1991 1 SCC 731.