PUNJAB LAND DEVELOPMENT AND RECLAMATION CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the employer is challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 18.1,1999 (copy Annexure P/1). Respondent No. 2 was workman of the petitioner. He joined duty on 3.8.1990 and he had proceeded on leave after few days i.e. w.e.f. 24,8.1990 which he had applied on account of domestic reasons. The leave was sanctioned. He joined duty again on 3.1.1991. The leave was granted upto 26.10.1990 only. Enquiry was conducted. However, it has been held by the Labour Court that the Inquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in one Kitting and recorded the statement of three witnesses of the department but no opportunity was afforded to respondent No. 2 to cross-examine the witnesses. It was held by the Labour Court that the petitioner did not adhere to the principle of natural justice in the enquiry and the enquiry is not legal and valid. The Labour Court observed that the order of terminating the serv-ic.e was a harsh one and it set-aside and ordered that two increments of respondent No. 2 be withheld from cumulative effect. The Labour Court, therefore, set-aside the termination and ordered respondent No. 2 to be reinstated with continuity of service with all the attendant benefits and back wages to the extent of 50% and two increments of respondent No. 2 shall be withheld with cumulative effect.

(2.) When the matter came up before the Bench on 14.12.1999 for motion hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that the petitioner is ready to take back respondent No. 2 in service provided that he gives'up his claim for 50% back wages.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to assail the award of the Labour Court. It may be noted that respondent No. 2 has not filed any writ petition challenging the award. However, the enquiry is held to be not proper and the reason for the punishment is only because of absence from duty for the above mentioned period.