( 1 ) W. P. NO. 16019 of 1996 is filed by M/s GHP limited, against the award of the labour court-III, Hyderabad in I. D. No. 282 of 1993, (old I. D. No. 289 of 1990), dated 23. 3. 1996, whereby the order of termination of the services of the 2nd respondent was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without back wages and on deferment of two increments as if not accrued.

( 2 ) TO the extent, back wages were denied and punishment of deferment of two increments was imposed by the labour court, the workman has challenged the award, in W. P. No. 8319 of 1997.

( 3 ) AS the award of the labour Court, in I. D. No. 282 of 1993 dated 23. 3. 1996, is under challenge in both the writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in W. P. No. 16019 of 1996.

( 4 ) FACTS, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that the petitioner- company, with its registered office at mumbai, was engaged in manufacture and sale of fiberglass and its products. It had a factory, at Thimmapur in Mahaboob nagar District of Andhra Pradesh, which it had earlier taken over from CEAT Limited. The 2nd respondent was appointed as an operator in the petitioner s factory in 1981. The 2nd respondent, while working in the "c" shift on September 2nd 1988, was allegedly found sitting in the bushing control room at about 10. 50 p. m. , reading a magazine and when the shift incharge asked him to do the work of fibre forming, he is alleged to have abused the shift incharge calling him "saala and Maa-ka-louda", an abuse in hindi. This incident is alleged to have taken place in the presence of supervisors. The 2nd respondent workman was issued a charge-sheet on 3rd September 1988 and called upon to offer his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him.

( 5 ) AGAIN on September 6th, when he was in the "b" shift in the fibre forming section at about 3. 30 p. m. , the 2nd respondent is alleged to have left his assigned place of work and to have rushed towards one Mr. Mohan, a Senior Executive, who was just about to enter his cabin, and to have addressed him in a threatening manner in Hindi, thus:"you people were responsible for my transfer from the mechanical Department to the production Department and from the production Department to the fibre Forming. I am now facing a lot of troubles and I have also been issued with a charge-sheet. All this has happened because of you people. There is no much time left now for me to leave this place. When I will be removed from here then my wages will stop which will cause me trouble. When my wages will stop then I will face difficulties and then you people will have to send the money to my home, otherwise you and your family will have lot of troubles".

( 6 ) ON being questioned as to what he meant by the threat, the 2nd respondent is alleged to have replied that nothing could be specifically stated at that moment as to what he could do but it had to be seen. The 2nd respondent is alleged to have gesticulated in a threatening manner towards mr. Mohan and to have walked away. The 2nd respondent was issued charge-sheet for this alleged incident, on September 8th 1988, and was placed under suspension pending enquiry.

( 7 ) THE departmental enquiry was conducted on 14th September 1988 and since the 2nd respondent did not attend, the enquiry was adjourned to 28th September 1988, on which date the 2nd respondent is said to have attended the enquiry and to have informed the Enquiry Officer that he would not seek the assistance of any co-employee but would defend himself. The Enquiry Officer is said to have read out the charge-sheet and to have explained its contents to the 2nd respondent who is said to have denied the allegations as false and that he did not commit any misconduct. The 2nd respondent refused to cross-examine the management witnesses,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document