PARSHURAM Vs. DUTT MEDI PRODUCT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge, in the present writ petition, is to the award dated 14.1.2013 (Annexure P1) whereby the Labour Court, Gurgaon has declined the reference on the ground that the termination of the services of the workman was justified and no interference is required regarding quantum of punishment awarded to the workman.

(2.) PERUSAL of the paper -book would go on to show that the pleaded case of the petitioner is that he joined respondent company as Electrician Foreman on 29.9.1996 and his service was terminated on 29.3.1999 when he was drawing salary of Rs. 4,500/ - per month. It was his case that he was an active member of the Trade Union and his service was terminated because of victimization without conducting any domestic enquiry. An industrial dispute has been sought to be raised by issuance of a demand notice on 2.9.1999 and thereafter, the matter was referred to the Labour Court.

(3.) THE Labour Court took into consideration the Certified Standing Orders No. 37 (Ex. M -35) and noticed that as many as five FIRs had been registered against the workman, which were admitted by him. It was also noticed that the workman was arrested by the police and he and his associates had entered into the factory premises with 40/45 persons in three Jeeps and caused damage to the property of the factory. FIR Ex. M9 has been taken into consideration while noticing the statement of G.M. Bhatt, MW. 1. Similarly regarding the incident of 2.6.1999, it was noticed that he had come to the gate of the factory to defy the injunction orders in association of his co -workers and hurled abuses and threat to life of the staff and the co -workers. The plea that the workman had been acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon in FIR No. 124 dated 15.4.1999 registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 506 IPC & 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 was rejected on the ground that evidence of the prosecution was closed by Court order and the accused has been acquitted because of benefit of doubt. It is also noticed that in the FIR No. 123 dated 15.4.1999, registered under Sections 452, 285, 336, 427, 307, 506 IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959, the acquittal had only been given on the ground that most of the prosecution witnesses except G.M. Bhatt, who appeared as MW. 1 before the Labour Court, had turned hostile. The finding was recorded that once unlawful activities have been resorted by the petitioner, the discipline was being affected. Clause 44.3 reads as under: -