PATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY MAZDOOR UNION Vs. H SAHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the quashing of the award given by Shri H. Sahai, Presiding Officer, Labour Court Patna, in Reference No 9 of 1963, holding that the employer viz. opposite party No. 2, was justified in dismissing one of its workmen, viz., Shri Shashi Bhushan Sharma, for misconduct.

(2.) The dismissal of the said workman was taken up by the Patna Electric Supply Mazdoor Union (the petitioner), and the reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act was made by the Government of Bihar as early as the 10th August, 1963. This reference was heard formerly by Shri K.N. Singh, Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Patna, who gave his award on the 3rd August, 1964. Six charges were framed against the workman by the employer, and a domestic enquiry was held before his dismissal from service. Shri K.N. Singh examined the evidence in respect of the six charges, and held that only one of those charges, viz., charge No. 3, which dealt with unauthorised extension of electric supply, was proved. He thought that, for this act of misconduct, the employer was justified in dismissing the workman, and gave his award accordingly. That award was challenged by the union (the petitioner) in a writ application filed in this Court in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 1253 of 1964. That application was finally disposed of by a Bench of this Court consisting of Choudhary and G.N. Prasad, JJ., who passed the following order "Acting in exercise of the powers conferred upon this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, I set aside the award of the Labour Court and send back the case to that Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law."

(3.) Thereupon, the industrial reference was taken up by Shri H. Sahai. Before him, there was acute controversy between the parties as regards the interpretation of the order of remand passed by the Bench. On behalf of the employer, it was contended that the remand was an open remand, and that the Labour Court had full jurisdiction to examine the case against the workman in respect of all the six charges of misconduct. On behalf of the Union, however, it was contended that, inasmuch as the writ application was filed by the union against the finding of the earlier Labour Court in respect of charge No 3 only, the remand also should be confined to a further examination by the succeeding Labour Court in respect of that charge, and that, as regards the remaining charges, which were held to be not proved by the earlier Labour Court, the succeeding Labour Court had no jurisdiction to further examine this question.