TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LTD. (NOW TATA MOTORS LTD.) Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING AND

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.) ON the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent submits that now there is no question of reinstatement of respondent, since he has crossed the age of superannuation and that was the purpose of filing writ application in the year 2006 so that the respondent may not rejoin his service. However, respondent is entitled to get compensation in accordance with law. He has further submitted that now it has been settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the hospital run by TISCO or TELCO are establishment within the meaning of Shops and Establishment Act. He has relied in the judgment of the case TISCO v. Chief Inspector of Factories in the case reported in : (2005) 9 SCC 605. He has further submitted that now since, petitioner has crossed the age of his superannuation, hence he is entitled for compensation in accordance with law.