JB MODI AND BROS Vs. MUKESH CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APART from challenging the interim award dated 21. 3. 1986 passed by the Labour Court, Kota, holding the respondent No. 1 (the concerned employee) as `workman' under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter to be referred to as `the Act of 1947') as also the Reference made by the Government of Rajasthan as maintainable and the departmental enquiry held against the concerned employee to be fair and proper as also the order dated 18. 3. 1991 passed by the Labour Court, rejecting the review application, the petitioner has also challenged the final award dated 30. 3. 1992, by which, the concerned employee has been ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits including back wages.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the concerned employee was appointed as Medical Representative vide order dated 2. 2. 1976. A charge sheet was served on the concerned employee on 23. 4. 1982. After holding departmental enquiry, the services of the concerned employee were terminated vide order dated 19. 2. 1982. On a dispute been raised by the concerned employee, the same was referred to the Labour Court, Kota for adjudication by the State Government vide Notification dated 15. 11. 1983. THE reference was made in the following terms:- &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp" Whether the contention of the employer, M/s. JB Modi & Bros, Bombay, that Shri MK Chopra, Sales Representative, is not a workman covered by section 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? Whether under the service conditions of the said establishment a dispute can be raised in Bombay only, is tenable? If the above said contention of the employer is not tenable, whether the termination of Shri MK Chopra, Sales Representative, is justified and legal? If not, what relief he is entitled to ?"

(3.) HAVING considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the entire material on record, the impugned awards and order passed the Labour Court as also the provisions of the Act of 1947, the Act of 1976 and the judgments cited at the Bar.