EICHER GOODEARTH LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the Management of M/s. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. challenging the award of the Labour Court dated May 4, 1985 by which the respondent No. 2-workman Madan Lal had been ordered to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages The award has essentially been challenged on the ground that although the Labour Court recorded a finding to the effect that the charge of misconduct against the respondent-workman was found to have been proved thus confirming the finding recorded by the domestic enquiry, yet it granted the relief of reinstatement with 50% back wages which is clearly illegal and unjustified in view of the conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court itself.

(2.) THE petitioner's advocate has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant facts and has stated that the respondent No. 2 worked with the management for a short period of two years and two months ranging from September 26, 1977 to December 10, 1979 and during this short period of service, he consistently committed numerous misconducts. To illustrate this, it has been stated that only few months after the confirmation of the respondent-workman, who had been appointed on September 26, 1977, he committed serious misconduct for which he was served with two charge-sheets and ultimately was dismissed from service for the charges which were found to have been proved after an enquiry was held against him. The charges according to the petitioner which were levelled against the respondent workman inter alia are that he had not only gone on illegal strike but also stopped other workers from functioning as he had restrained the driver of a truck from unloading the truck and also stopped cars from moving. The relevant portion of the charges in the two charge-sheets have been quoted which alleges serious misbehaviour by the respondent workman which after enquiry were found to have been proved. An Industrial dispute was thereafter raised by the respondent-workman which was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court after consideration of the matter recorded a finding that the respondent workman had not only gone on strike but also stopped other employees from working by threatening them. It was pleased to notice in this regard that the respondent-workman stopped one Amar Singh from taking car, snatched the crane from the hands of Vardan Kaushik, threatened them and stopped others from working. He has also used filthy language and instigated others to join the strike. The specific finding of the Labour Court in this regard are as follows:-

(3.) HOWEVER, the Labour Court, inspite of this categorical finding, was pleased to order for reinstatement of the respondent-workman alongwith 50% back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Raj Birbal has, therefore, assailed the order of the Labour Court and has contended that when the Labour Court itself has recorded a finding holding the charge of misconduct to be proved, there was no legal justification for the Labour Court to pass an order of reinstatement of the workman alongwith 50% back wages. Thus it has been submitted that the award of the Labour Court is clearly contradictory and self-destructive of its own finding. Shri Birbal has further contended that on the one hand the Labour Court upheld the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner-management on the two charge-sheets regarding serious charges as well as recorded a finding in the impugned award regarding the respondent-workman doing various acts of misconducts viz. going on illegal and unjustified strike, stopping others to work, threatening and instigating others for abstaining from work which clearly are serious misconducts and inspite of this it held that the respondent-workman is not guilty of serious misconduct. The findings being self-destructive, the Labour Court has committed an error of law and jurisdiction and thus the whole foundation of the impugned award is baseless and unfounded due to which the award is fit to be set aside. According to the petitioner's advocate, the award of the Labour Court is arbitrary as it has been pleased to set aside the dismissal granting the relief of reinstatement with 50% back wages in a capricious manner. In support of his submission he has relied upon several authorities of the Supreme Court in order to prove his point.