HARYANA CO-OP SUGAR MILLS LTD , ROHTAK Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIFBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ROHTAK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 22.8.2008 (Annexure P-15) passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak, whereby termination order of respondent No. 2-workman has been set aside and the penalty awarded to respondent No. 2 has been modified and substituted to a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect by reinstating respondent No. 2 on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 4.1.1994.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that once the Court has given a specific finding with regard to the enquiry proceedings being in accordance with law and finding no illegality in the same, the Labour Court cannot thereafter while deciding the issues, reopen the same and subsequently decide the same against the Management which has been done in the present case. He contends that the evidence which has been led cannot be looked into. He contends that the Labour Court has in its award accepted that there was negligence on the part of the employee in informing and intimating the employer with regard to his illness and having held so, the order of termination cannot be faulted with and, therefore, the award cannot be sustained. Counsel for the petitioner contends that no issue was framed with regard to the back wages but still the Labour Court has granted the workman 50% back wages from the date of demand notice.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contends that it is correct that the issue with regard to enquiry proceedings being in accordance with law was decided by the Labour Court against the workman holding it to be in accordance with law. However, the said order was challenged by the workman by preferring Civil Revision No. 4494 of 2004 before the High Court wherein, after hearing the parties, this Court was pleased to observe that in case the final award is passed against the workman, it would be open to him to challenge the impugned order. On this basis, he contends that since the petitioners are now challenging, in these proceedings, the observations of the Labour Court with regard to the evidence led by the workman while the preliminary issue was decided, it would be open to him to address arguments on this aspect. He, on the basis of the evidence produced before the Labour Court, contends that it has clearly come on record that the witnesses so called by the Inquiry Officer have come up before the Labour Court and stated that no statements were recorded and they were asked to sign the papers in the office of the Inquiry Officer. They have further come up and stated that no questions were put to them. He, on this basis, contends that while deciding the issue with regard to the justifiability of the order of termination, it was open to the Labour Court to look into the evidence which has been produced by the parties for coming to a conclusion with regard to the illegality of the order of termination. He further contends that it was open to the workman to challenge the findings of the Inquiry Officer by leading evidence before the Labour Court and having done so, the workman has requested the Labour Court for calling the relevant records, to be produced by the Management, but the Management failed to produce the same. These documents were the relevant records which would have proved negligence against the workman which is attributed to him. Having failed to produce the records, an adverse inference drawn by the Labour Court is fully justified as the charges levelled against the workman have been held to be not proved against him. He further submits that as regards the illness of the workman because of which he was absent from duty, overwhelming evidence has been produced by the workman showing the nature of injuries, his admission in PGI Rohtak and thereafter his treatment at Adarsh Nursing Home, Delhi. These documents have not been disputed as they were fully proved before the Labour Court.