KULDIP SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were employed as production assistants, Grade III, with the Punjab Digital Industrial Systems Limited. In May, 1991, the petitioners were ordered to be dismissed from service. They raised an industrial dispute and sought a reference to the Labour Court. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court. By its award dated June 10, 1984, the Labour Court rejected the claim made by the workmen. One of the two workmen filed CWP No. 10156 of 1994. Vide order dated November 9, 1995, the High Court quashed the award and remitted the matter to the Labour Court for fresh decision. However, only petitioner No. 1 appeared before the Labour Court. Petitioner No. 2 (Mr. Kamal Kumar) was proceeded against ex parte. The Labour Court having held that the order of termination is justified, both the workmen have filed the present writ petition.

(2.) MR. Gopal Mahajan has contended that the punishment awarded to the petitioners is totally disproportionate to the charges levelled against them and, thus, the award given by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-management has contended that the Labour Court having exercised its discretion, the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Labour Court.

(3.) A perusal of the award shows that the Labour Court had framed the following two, issues: