GAJRAJ Vs. JMP INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 10.1.1995 passed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar, the petitioner has filed this petition and has prayed for quashing of the impugned award by issue of a writ of certiorari.

(2.) Some of the facts on which the parties do not have any serious dispute are that the petitioner was employed as Moulder in the services of respondent No.1 w.e.f. 14.10.1984 with monthly wages of Rs.442/-. He raised an industrial dispute alleging unlawful termination of his services which was referred to the Labour Court, Jalandhar for adjudication by the Government of Punjab vide order dated 26.6.1987. The petitioner filed statement of claim which was contested by respondent No.l. The Labour Court gave opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and, thereafter, passed the impugned award dismissing the claim of the workman for reinstatement on the ground that the domestic enquiry held by the employer was fair and proper and also on the ground that reference was pre-mature.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned award on the ground that the Labour Court has failed to properly appreciate the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and has also erred in dismissing the claim of the workman merely because domestic enquiry held by the employer was found to be proper. Learned counsel argued that even if the domestic enquiry held by the employer was held to be fair and proper, the Labour Court was duty bound to further consider whether the allegation of misconduct levelled against the petitioner is substantiated by the evidence produced during the domestic enquiry and also whether the punishment awarded by the employer is justified or not. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.l argued that the reference made by the Government was incompetent because employer had not terminated the services of the workman till the date of raising of the demand and in the absence of any evidence to show that an industrial dispute was existing, the Government was not entitled to make reference by exercising the powers under Section 10 of 1947 Act. Second contention urged by the learned counsel for respondent NO..1 is that once the Labour Court upheld enquiry made by the employer, it had no option but upheld the punishment awarded by the employer. Learned counsel further argued that in regard to the alleged breach of Section 33 of 1947 Act, the petitioner could have filed a complaint under Section 33-A of the Act and the action of the employer is not vitiated merely because application under Section 33(2)(b) had not filed for approval of termination of the services of the petitioner. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Bum and Company Ltd. versus Their Workmen & others, 1959 AIR(SC) 529 and Punjab Beverages Private Ltd., Chandigarh V. Suresh Chand, 1978 AIR(SC) 995