GEM CINEMA JAIPUR Vs. B C OJHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition filed by Gem Cinema raises an important question about the scope of the jurisdiction of the labour Court and it arises out of the following circumstances: Respondent Chhitarmal was employee of the petitioner's firm. He applied on 27th August, 1966, for two days leave to attend his party convention at Delhi on, 1st and 2nd September, 1966. THIS application of the respondent was rejected by the management on the ground that there was shortage of gate-keepers and, therefore, Chhitarmal could not be spared. Chhitarmal again sent an application for leave on 29th August, 1966, on the ground of illness certificate. The management suspected a foul play in this matter and, therefore, sent a letter to Chhitramal asking him to produce a certificate of a Government authorised medical practitioner. When the messenger of the petitioner's firm went to deliver the said letter he discovered that Chhitarmal had already left for Delhi. The management thereupon initiated a disciplinary action against Chhitarmal and after domestic inquiry it was held that Chhitar Mal was guilty of gross misconduct in submitting a false medical certificate with a view to obtain leave and absented himself from duty without leave. A serious view of this conduct of an employee was taken by the management and the punishment of dismissal was awarded to him. An industrial, dispute was thereafter raised by Chhitarmal. The Concilliation officer submitted his failure report. The matter was then referred to the State Government, but the Government vide its order dated 17th June, 1967, refused to refer the matter to the Labour Court. Later on, it is contended by the petitioner that as a result of certain political pressures the Government was persuaded to refer the following dispute to the Labour Court, - "whether the quantum of punishment awarded by Gem Cinema, Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Chhitarmal, show attendant, for an act of disobedience is on the higher side ? And to what relief, if any, Shri Chhitarmal is entitled ?"

(2.) THE Labour Court of Rajasthan, after inquiry, recorded its finding that the domestic inquiry, held by one Shri M. C. Sharma cannot be said to be unfair as Chhitarmal was given full opportunity to associate himself with the inquiry; and that the charge of misconduct levelled against Chhitarmal was fully established and Chhitarmal rightly held guilty of malingering. As regards the adequacy of punishment the Labqur Court observed that it could not be the case of victimisation because the employee was found guilty of gross misconduct, and such a conduct merits dismissal by itself. But at the end of its order the Court was swayed away by a consideration of the young age of the workman and said "it is clear that the workman made this mistake being a young blood for the Union's cause. " It was in this background that learned Judge presiding over the Labour Court set aside the punishment of dismissal treating it as drastic and severe, and directed for his re-employment, but specifically ordered that for the period the workman remained absent from his duty he will not be entitled to receive back wages. This punishment was considered by the court quite sufficient to meet the ends of justice.