FACTORY MANAGER INDORE TEXTILES Vs. RAVISHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, is at the instance of employer to the two orders passed by the Labour Court and affirmed by the Industrial Court in appeal in favour of respondent No. 1. The facts found proved need mention to appreciate the issue urged.

(2.) THE petitioner is a scheduled industry as per the provision of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act (for short "the Act" ). Respondent No. 1 was an employee working in the petitioner's industry.

(3.) ON February 22, 1988, respondent No. I was served with chargesheet for a major misconduct enumerated in the standing orders applicable. As a consequence, the case was adjudicated by the departmental enquiry which resulted in dismissal of respondent No. 1. This led to filing of an application by respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court under Section 31 (3) of the Act challenging the said dismissal. The Labour Court held the enquiry proceedings to be bad and illegal and called upon the employer to prove the misconduct. Eventually, the Labour Court by its final order dated February 12, 1999, directed reinstatement of respondent No. 1 but declined to award backwages. It was, however, found as a fact that the factory of the petitioner where respondent No. 1 was working was closed with effect from September 30, 1997, and all the workers working as on September 30, 1997, were paid required closure and retrenchment compensation. It was, therefore, neither possible nor proper to direct reinstatement of the respondent No. 1. The Labour Court, therefore, instead of directing reinstatement directed that respondent No. 1 will be entitled to claim all these benefits which were made available to all other employees. Accordingly, the direction was given to extend all benefits which respondent No. 1 would have been entitled to, had he been in the service. However, it was not so specified as to which are those benefits which would be legally extended to respondent No. 1. This order of the Labour Court was upheld by the Industrial Court in appeal filed by the petitioner which is now impugned in this petition. Heard, Shri Rajmal Jain learned counsel for petitioner and Shri P. D. Kale, learned counsel for respondent finally.