TALBROS AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, FARIDABAD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.07.2000 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Faridabad, vide which issue No. 2 i.e. whether a fair and proper enquiry was held or not, has been decided against the petitioner and the award dated 29.09.2000 (Annexure P-14) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Faridabad, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of respondent No. 2-workman and he has been held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2-workman, who was employed as a Clerk Typist on 22.10.1989 with the petitioner. On 15.06.1994, he approached his Departmental Head Sh. Jatinder Sachdev and asked for sanction of half day leave on 15.06.1994 as also for the period for which he has absented i.e. 13th and 141h June, 1994. The Departmental Head had refused to sanction the leave for 13th and 14th June, 1994 on 1011 June. On being refused leave, it is alleged that respondent No. 2-workman abused the Departmental Head in front of the other workers and threatened him. The leave was not granted for 15.06.1994, however respondent No. 2-workman absented himself on 15.06.1994 as well. A charge-sheet dated 16.06.1994 was served upon respondent No. 2-workman (Annexure P-1). To this charge-sheet, the workman submitted his reply and denied the said charges. Not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the workman, the petitioner Management proceeded to enquire the matter. Consequently, Sh. O.P. Ahuja was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 23.06.1994. Respondent No. 2-workman made a request that Sh. K.L. Sharma, who was the Vice President of the INTUC union, be allowed to represent him. The said request was not granted by the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, the workman did not participate in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold his enquiry as per Clause 30 of the Certified Standing Orders of the petitioner and submitted his enquiry report on 21.10.1994 (Annexure P-4). The Enquiry Officer held respondent No. 2-workman guilty of the alleged charges. The competent authority accepted the enquiry report and passed an order dated 24.10.1994 dismissing respondent No. 2-workman from service, copy of the said order is appended as Annexure P-5 with the writ petition.

(3.) Respondent No. 2-workman submitted a demand notice dated 08.05.1995 (Annexure P-6) claiming therein reinstatement with full back wages. The petitioner filed a reply to the said notice, which is appended as Annexure P- 7. As the conciliation proceedings failed, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Faridabad. The Labour Court, on the basis of the pleadings, proceeded to frame the following issues: