TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LTD (NOW T Vs. K D PANDEY, STATE OF JHARKHAND SECRETARY, DEPARTME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner - M/S Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd now Tata Motors Ltd., Jamshedpur and learned Counsel for the workman- Dr. K.D. Pandey.

(2.) The instant writ application is directed against the judgment dated 28.2.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in B.S. Case No. 3 of 1997 by which judgment, learned Labour Court after considering all the evidence on record came to a finding that the respondent- Dr. K.d. Pandey was an employee working in the hospital being run by TATA motors for the treatment of workers of TATA motors factory as well as people in general and hence, he was employee within the meaning of Shops and Establishment Act, 1953, the court on the basis of the evidence came to a conclusive finding while deciding the issue No. 2 i.e. as to whether the applicant was guilty of misconduct of accepting illegal gratification. Learned Labour Court after discussing all the evidences also came to a conclusive finding at para 38 of the judgment that the management failed to prove by any reliable evidence that Dr. K.D. Pandey has committed any misconduct as alleged by the management- petitioner and finally while deciding the issue that whether the punishing authority was competent to punish the applicant on the charge of misconduct, learned Labour Court has considered all the aspect came to a conclusive finding that the action of the management on 6th February, 1997 in terminating the service of the applicant-respondent in this writ application was malafide, illegal and improper and also found that the Divisional Head cum Managing Director, Personal was not competent to terminate the service of the applicant and directed for reinstatement of the Respondent with full back wages with consequential benefits and continuing in service.

(3.) In this writ of certiorari , learned Counsel for the petitioner has again raised the point that the respondent was working as per the factory act, since petitioner- TATA Motors is running the factor and factory has opened the hospital which is incidental to the running of the factory. He has further submitted that since, the hospital is being run without any profit base for the employees as per Section 91 of the act, hence it will not be covered under the shops and establishment Act. He has further raised the point that employee concerned was terminated by invoking annexure-2 i.e. terms of agreement and hence, he cannot claim that his termination was not in accordance with law. He has also argued that respondent cannot be allowed to get full back wages since, learned Labour Court has failed to give any finding with regard to the fact that the workman was gainfully employed somewhere else or not. He has also argued that petitioner was holding a post of trust being appointed as Registrar of the hospital being run by TATA motors, as such he cannot be asked to be reinstated.