HINDUSTAN ZINE LIMITED Vs. PRADEEP SIROYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions for writ are preferred to question validity, propriety and correctness of the award dated December 14, 1994 passed by Labour Court, Udaipur answering the reference made to it by the appropriate government in following terms: "Whether the action of the Management, Rajpura Dariba Mines, Hindustan Zinc Ltd., in terminating the services of Shri Pradeep Siroya son of Shri Sardar Singh, Senior Assistant, Employee No. 32168 w.e.f. January 19, 1991 is justified and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

(2.) Before passing the award impugned the Labour Court vide order dated December 5, 1994 held the domestic inquiry fair and in accordance with law. The Labour Court also held that Shri Pradeep Siroya (hereinafter referred to as "the workman") was rightly found guilty for the misconduct but held the penalty of discharge from service disproportionate to the delinquency proved. Accordingly, while exercising powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947") the punishment of discharge was substituted by penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The workman was also declared entitled for 50% of the back wages and full wages for the period he remained under suspension. Challenge is given to the award by the employer as well as by the workman. By the workman challenge is also given to the order dated December 5, 1994 holding the domestic inquiry fair.

(3.) The factual matrix giving rise to the industrial dispute as above is that the Manager (Goods), Rajpura Dariba Mines, Hindustan Zinc Ltd. issued and served a memorandum dated April 16, 1990 seeking explanation from the workman for certain allegations of misconduct relating to his misbehaviour with higher officials. It appears that the workman under his letter dated April 22, 1990 accepted the wrong done by him, therefore, the Manager (Goods) dropped the proposed disciplinary action with warning to the workman. Some uncalled for incidents again took place on July 7, 1990 and July 22, 1990 and for that the disciplinary authority served a charge sheet dated July 23, 1990. The charge sheet was containing definite charges with statement of facts on which charges were founded. The charges of misconduct alleged, and the statement of allegation under the charge sheet dated July 23, 1990 reads as follows: