BHARTIA CUTLER HAMMER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated August 25, 2008 (Annexure-P-15) passed by the learned labour Court-II, Faridabad, whereby the reference of the claimant workman was accepted with costs and an award was passed to the effect that dismissal of the claimant workman is illegal, unjustified, and he is entitled to full back wages along with all consequential benefits of service from the date of his dismissal till the date of his superannuation.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has contended that the Labour Court has proceeded in the matter as if deciding the case on criminal side on the assumption that strict principles of Evidence act are applicable to the proceedings of the labour Court. It has been submitted by him that the Management/petitioner has been able to establish the fact that an incidence did occur on february 25,2000. This he contends on the basis of the statement of Surinder Singh M. W. 2- Head Constable, Police Station, Sector-7, faridabad, who had proved copy of the F. I. R. Ex. M. W. 2/1 from the original record and on the statement of Dr. Sudhir Khurana, M. W. 3 who medically examined Jiwat Singh on february 25, 2000 vide M. L. R. M. W. 3/1 and found five injuries on his person. He further submits that the management/petitioner has been able to prove on record that tool down in the factory was started on the said date. This he states on the basis of the statement of both the management witnesses as well as the workman witnesses. He has relied upon the statement of jiwat Singh (Annexure-P-9) workman W. W. 3 who had accepted that he had suffered injuries in the fight which took place on February 25, 2000. He has further relied on the statement of suchia Yadav M. W. I (Annexure-P-1) to contend that the witness has resiled from his statement which proves that there was such fear of the claimant workman Khazan Singh. This shows that the workman had violated the discipline and the situation was so surcharged and everyone was fear stricken that it was not possible for the management/petitioner to conduct a domestic inquiry at that stage and the management/petitioner had no option but to pass the order of dismissal of the workman. He on the basis of the above submits that the dismissal of Khazan Singh was justified and therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. In any case, he submits that since the claimant has not in his claim petition stated that he has not been gainfully employed, therefore, he was not entitled to full back wages along with other consequential benefits of service from the date of his dismissal.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions put forth by counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance have gone through the records of the case and impugned award dated August 25, 2008 (Annexure-P-15) challenged herein.