LAWS(APH)-2013-12-103

VST INDUSTRIES LTD.,HYDERABAD Vs. G.OM PRAKASH

Decided On December 24, 2013
Vst Industries Ltd.,Hyderabad Appellant
V/S
G.OM PRAKASH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The former of the two writ appeals, Writ Appeal No. 1586 of 2005, was filed by the Management, and the latter, Writ Appeal No. 2200 of 2005, by the Workman, both assailing the same Judgment, dated 28.04.2005, in W.P. No. 23516 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, a learned Single. Judge modified the Award, dated 21.06.1996, in I.D. No. 599 of 1993 passed by the 2nd respondent-Labour Court. In fact, when the 1st respondent raised an industrial dispute questioning the orders of dismissal dated 24.09.1992 passed by the appellant Company, the 2nd respondent Labour Court set it aside and directed the appellant Company to appoint the 1st respondent afresh as a general worker in the respondent Company without entitlement either for back wages or for continuity of service. When the matter was taken to this Court, the learned Single Judge, in turn, has further modified the award of the 2nd respondent Labour Court to that of compulsory retirement. Thus, assailing the judgment, dated 28.04.2005, in W.P. No. 23516 of 1996, both the appellant Company and the 1st respondent workman filed the above two writ appeals.

(2.) Both these writ appeals are being disposed of through a common Judgment, since both appeals have arisen out of the same Judgment, involving the same issues of fact and law, between the same parties.

(3.) Culling out the facts from W.A. No. 1586 of 2005, based on which the nomenclature is assigned to the respective parties, it is to be stated in brief that the appellant Company has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of cigarettes with a workforce of about 1800 workmen. The 1st respondent, having joined the appellant Company on 07.12.1970 as a General Worker, at the earliest point of his career, about three years after his appointment, in June 1993 (sic. 1973), was charge sheeted for an act of misconduct; to wit, theft. To elaborate, the gist of the allegation is that the respondent workman was in wrongful possession' of company's property, i.e., four (4) loose Charminar cigarettes (Charminar being the brand name), as was found by the watchman at the exit gate.