COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CHANDIGARH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure P-8) whereby, the Labour Court, Chandigarh has directed that the respondent-workman shall be entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages 3 years preceding the date of demand notice dated 14.02.2003.

(2.) A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the respondent-workman was working as Safai Karamchari and was appointed on 24.03.1979. He was involved in FIR No. 2 dated 01.01.1995 under Section 148/307/323/149 IPC and on account of his arrest, was placed under suspension w.e.f. 27.01.1995 i.e. the date of his arrest. On conviction by the Session Judge, Chandigarh on 01.06.1996, show cause notice was served upon him on 27.08.1996 as to why his services should not be dismissed.

(3.) In his reply, the workman submitted an appeal against conviction was filed which had been admitted in the High Court and accordingly, the Commissioner of the petitioner-corporation on account of his conviction, dismissed the workman vide order dated 29.07.1997. Thereafter, on 31.10.2000, the Division Bench of this Court acquitted the workman and his co-accused apart from one Dilbagh Singh under Section 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and maintained the conviction only under Section 323 IPC and sentenced them for the period which they had already undergone. It is pertinent to mention here that Ram Kumar s/o Phool Singh was given the same benefit, who was also an employee of the petitioner-corporation. Vide demand notice dated 14.02.2003 (Annexure P- 5) under Section 2-A of the Act, the workman raised an industrial dispute by pointing out that earlier also, a representation had been given on 19.12.2000 requesting for reinstatement but no decision had been taken. It was submitted that the dispute was a private dispute which had taken place outside the premises and the precincts of the management. The matter being referred to the Labour Court, the petitioner-corporation took the plea that since he had been sentenced under Section 323 IPC on 31.10.2000 and he was having a criminal record, he was not fit to be retained in service. The order of dismissal was thus sought to be justified.