FACTORY MANAGER CENTRAL INDIA MACHINERY Vs. PRAKASH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE beginning of the new year of 1968, did not prove to be a happy occasion for Prakash Singh who figures as a petitioner in Writ Petition No. 496 of 1994 and respondent in Writ Petition No. 210 of 1994. The controversy in which he embroiled himself has not seen its terminal point even though more than 25 years have elapsed. He got partial relief from the Labour Court. Both he and his employer were unsatisfied. An appeal was preferred. Some relief was given to the petitioner The employer's appeal met with no success. Still, dissatisfied both sides have preferred these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As both writ petitions arise out of a common order, it is thought apt to deal with them in this single and 1 common order.

(2.) ANNEXURE P/1, is the appellate order and Annexure P/2, is the order out of which appeal arose. Before going into the legal submissions made by the parties the facts in brief to be noticed.

(3.) THE petitioner Prakash Singh hereinafter referred to as 'workman' has been described as 'badli worker1 by his employer. He was employed in sheet-cutting khata as welder. The term 'khata' in English means 'department'. It is alleged that he disobeyed legal and valid orders given to him by his superiors. As the factory opened on January 1, 1968, the workman was ordered to work with incharge in the department in Muller Section. It is said that worker disobeyed and refused to work. An entry was made on his daily attendance card. There is to the effect 'refused to work'. It is said that he not only refused to work but remained in the department where other workers were performing their duties. So far as refusal to work is concerned it is so recorded in writing. This is Annexure P/3. The further fact that he was asked to leave the department and he refused to do so is not supported by any written order. Reliance has been placed on the oral statement made by Shri, Popaldas, P. W. 5, who was the incharge in the department. The workman was served with a charge-sheet on this very day. Copy of this is Annexure P/4. The workman submitted his reply. This is Annexure P/5. It is dated January 4, 1968. The plea taken by him was that he did not disobey any order given to him. A charge-sheet was served. A domestic inquiry was conducted. It is stated that the workman did not join the enquiry despite notice of this inquiry was served on him. This led to an exparte inquiry being conducted. Enquiry report was submitted. The Factory Manager took notice of the exparte inquiry report so submitted and passed an order of dismissal. This happened on January 30, 1968. Copy of this order, is Annexure P/6. 3 A. On the passing of this order, the workman took recourse to Sections 31 (3), 61 and 62 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). An application was preferred. That is Annexure P/8. A written statement was filed by the employer. This is Annexure P/8a. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the domestic inquiry was defective. It accordingly proceeded to hold an inquiry at his own level. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the employer had in fact asked the workman to go to work in the Muller Assembly section and this order was disobeyed. A written order given in this regard was also said to have been disobeyed. A finding was also recorded that the workman continued to remain in the department. His previous conduct as apparent from Annexure D/35, D/36, D/38, D/39, D/40, 41 and D/43 (on the record of the Labour Court) was taken note of. A finding was recorded that the workman was gainfully employed. It, however, came to the conclusion that the misconduct on the part of the workman was a minor one and the extreme step taken by the management, was not justified. The Labour Court instead of reinstating thought it proper to compensate the petitioner. It was of the view that he should be given compensation. This amount was fixed at Rs. 50,000/ -.