MALKIAT SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER,LABOUR COURT,PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award of the Labour Court, Patiala dated 30.03.1993 save and limited to the extent that it denies the relief of back wages to the petitioner. The petitioner-workman has not challenged that part of the award in which the Labour Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act) in its discretion has scaled down the punishment from termination to reinstatement with continuity of service and stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect w.e.f. 05.07.1989.

(2.) In moulding the relief, the Labour Court has in fact awarded two punishments. Firstly, as above and secondly that the workman would not be entitled to the back wages for the period 05.07.1989 to 09.08.1993. It may not be necessary to go into a detailed examination of the facts and suffice it to say that the petitioner/workman was chargesheeted on two grounds. One that he absented from duty for a short period in the morning on 08.02.1988 for about half an hour and left office 35 minutes earlier on the same day.

(3.) The second charge was that he misbehaved with the Yard Master when he was asked by his superior to explain his absence from duty. The Labour Court inter alia framed the issue as to whether the enquiry had been fair and proper. With regard to the validity of the enquiry, the Labour Court has found that the charge of misbehaviour which was certainly the more serious charge did not stand proved. The respondent-Management has not filed a writ petition challenging the award. Therefore, the award is final qua it. I see no reason to differ with the view expressed by the Labour Court on the charge of misbehaviour as not proved and uphold the same.