MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ application has been filed for for quashing the award dated 28-6-1986 passed by the respondent the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in Reference Case No. 23 of 1983 whereby it has been held that the termination of services of Shri Bhim Shahi, A.H.P. Welder P. N. 11706 who is a workman of the petitioner, is not justified and accordingly, he has been directed to be reinstated with full back wages and consequential benefits.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the present case and the question involved are very short. Admittedly the petitioner was a workman of the petitioner and his services were terminated with effect from 23-11-1978 in terms of Standing Order No. 16(X)(a) or (b), as is evident from letter as contained in Annexure 3 to the application, on the ground of unauthorised absence. THE Labour Court on appraisal of the facts has come to the conclusion that the absence of the workman was because of illeness. Mr. Banerjee, appearing for the petitioner has sought to assail the said finding of fact on the ground that it has been arrived at fay relying on inadmissible and inadequate evidence and as such it is perverse.

(3.) ALTERNATIVE argument advanced by Mr. Banerjee was that since the workman concerned was habitual absentee and employers have lost confidence in him, therefore, the Tribunal instead of directing for reinstatement should have settled the dispute by awarding compensation in lieu thereof. In support of his submission he has relied on the decisions of M. Arunagiri v. Bata India Ltd. and Anr. reported in 11 LL Notes 816 and Air Corporation Employee Union and Ors. v. Air India and Ors. reported in 11 LL Notes 711. It has been held by the Supreme Court as well as various High Courts that reinstatment for violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not the universal rule in all cases and compensation can be awarded in lieu of reinstatement in exceptional case. Since this aspect of the matter has not been gone into by the Labour Court, therefore, in my opinion, it will be fit and proper if the case is remanded to the Labour Court only for deciding as to whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, it will be proper to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement as directed under the impugned award.