SEWA SINGH Vs. M/S RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 4610, 1490, 1035, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 3641 and 3642 of 1988 in which the some award dated 11 September, 1987, given by the Labour Court, Patiala, has been challenged, whereby the order of termination of services of the workmen - petitioners in these writ petitions, has been upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions were the employees of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Mohali, before their services were terminated on 21st January, 1983. The petitioners served a demand notice containing various demands of the workmen which gave rise to an industrial dispute and the same was referred for adjustication under Section 10(1)C of the Industrial Disputes Act, common in all these petitions reads as under :-

(3.) The learned Labour Court, after recording evidence, came to the conclusion that the ex-parte inquiry held by the Inquiry Officer before termination of services of the petitioners was not fair and proper. Consequently, it decided issue No. 1, that is, "whether there has been a fair and proper enquiry," against the management. However, so far as the second issue is concerned, that is, "whether the order of termination of services of the workman is justified and in order," the learned Labour Court held that as the petitioners had resorted to strike against the management during the currency of the earlier settlement, termination of services of the petitioners by the management on that account was legally permissible as the absence of the petitioners amounted to misconduct on their part. Resultantly, the second issue having been decided against the workmen, the learned Labour Court held that the order of termination of their services was justified and in order and, therefore, the workmen were not entitled to any relief. Aggrieved against this award, the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court to have the award in question quashed, mainly on the ground that mere participation in an illegal and unjustified strike is not sufficient to impose the punishment of dismissal or termination of services of the workmen, and the management must establish either during the domestic inquiry or before the Industrial Tribunal that the workmen involved indulged in vandalism or violence, instigation or sabotage.