The court reaffirmed that a management's justified dismissal under the Industrial Disputes Act, after due process, cannot be disregarded by a Labour Court in subsequent proceedings.

ORDER :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the employer/management calling in question the award dated 07.09.2011 passed in Ref.No.4/2008 by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli, [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Labour Court’]

2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that the respondent/workman was employed by the petitioner/complainant for the purpose of running various lathe machines, drill machines, grinders, etc. A show-cause notice dated 23.04.2007 was issued to the respondent/workman, alleging that on 26.03.2007, while on duty and operating a drill machine, he mishandled the equipment, resulting in damage that rendered the drill unusable. When the petitioner sought to recover the cost of the damaged drill from the respondent, he along with another workman, allegedly approached one of the partners of the petitioner and abused with indecent and vulgar language. Consequently, the respondent was called upon to submit his explanation vide show-cause notice dated 23.04.2007, which he did on 25.05.2007, claiming that he was orally directed not to work. Thereafter, the workman initiated proceedings under Section 10 (1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, registered as Ref. No.4/2008. Meanwhile, in relation to the allegations set out in the show-cause notice dated 23.04.2007, Articles of Charge was issued to the workman on 06.07.2007. A domestic enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer, vide report dated 12.08.2008, found the workman guilty of the charges.

3. In the meanwhile, the workman had initiated proceedings under the provisions of the I.D. Act, contending, inter alia, that his services were terminated on 17.04.2007 without assigning any reasons. The same was referred for conciliation before the Labour Officer, Belagaum, which ended in a failure. Consequently, a reference was made under Section 10 (1)(C) of the I.D. Act, vide order dated 27.12.2007, in Ref.No.4/2008 for adjudication of the dispute between the workman and the management with regard to the alleged order of dismissal dated 17.04.2007. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an application in Miscellaneous No.5/2010 under Section 33 (1)(d) of the I.D. Act, seeking for permission to impose the punishment of dismissal from service on the workman. The Labour Court, by its order dated 11.11.2010, allowed Miscellaneous No.5/2010 and permitted the management/employer to impose the punishment of dismissal from service on the workman for having committed misconduct as proved in the domestic enquiry, consequent to which, vide Communication dated 16.12.2010, the workman was dismissed from service with effect from 18.12.2010 for having committed the misconduct in respect of a charges alleged in the charge sheet dated 06.07.2007. Thereafter, vide award dated 17.09.2011, the Labour Court allowed Ref.No.4/2008, and accepted the reference of the workman and passed the following award:

AWARD

a. Award is passed.

b. The reference of the workman is hereby accepted partly without costs.

c. The order of the respondent-management terminating the workman from service from 17.4.2007 is hereby set aside.

d. The claimant-workman is reinstated in to service with continuity of service, within 30 days from the date of publication of the award by the government.

e. The claimant-workman is entitled to get 25% of back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of termination from service i.e., from 17.4.2007 till the date of award.

f. The claimant-workman is also entitled to get wages for the month of March 2007 and till 16.4.2007.

g. Send a copy of this award to the Governm