RAJASTHAN CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner - Rajasthan Co -operative Spinning Mills Limited, Gulabpura, Bhilwara has challenged the legality and correctness of the Award dated 21st August, 1986 given by learned Labour Judge, Udaipur. The submission of Mr. D.K. Parihar is that the Labour Judge has taken into consideration the seriousness of the charge against the petitioner i.e. his being obstinate to the concerned engineer and the misconduct of the petitioner, still the learned Labour Judge has taken lenient view in reinstating the petitioner. According to Mr. Purohit, if the discretion is allowed to be used in such a way, it would be very difficult for the petitioner to maintain discipline amongst the workers. The matter relates to the dismissal of Rajendra Prasad, a helper working with the petitioner in the year, 1983. On the charge of being obstinate with one engineer on 20th Feburary, 1983, the Labour Authority referred the matter to the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur which passed the award impugned in this writ petition. It is correct that the learned Labour Judge has considered the departmental enquiry to be correct and has also held that respondent No. 1 Rajendra Prasad was guilty of misconduct. However, taking in view the provisions of Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the learned Labour Judge took a lenient view in the matter and ordered for reinstatement of respondent No. 1. The learned Judge however taking into consideration, the family circumstances of the petitioner and his period of service commencing from 1978, has taken a lenient view in the matter, and set aside the order of his dismissal.

(2.) WE are not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Labour Judge for the reasons mentioned by him in the impugned award. The learned Labour Judge was quite conscious about the misconduct of the respondent No. 1 and has deprived him of back wages as well as the benefit accruing to him during the period of his termination.

(3.) THE writ petition has no merits and is dismissed summarily.