JUDGMENT- R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petitioner trust has impugned the judgment and order dated 6-6-2001 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai in Revision Application (ULP) No. 2 of 2000 filed by the trust and Trustees against the judgment and order of the 6th Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 314 of 1994 filed by the respondent No. 1, concerned employee, under section 28 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 read with Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act to challenge the order of termination dated 6-7-1994 on the ground that he was found guilty of habitual late attendance in the office.

2. The charge against the respondent employee who had put in 19 years of clean and umblemish service, was that he had attended the office late on 11 days in September, 1993, 20 days in October 1993 and 14 days in December 1993. It was further alleged against him that in the months of April and May 1994 he had attended the office very late. By a letter dated 7-6-1994 he was called upon to show cause why he should not be terminated from employment for habitual late attendance. It was mentioned in the said letter that he was warned several times of his unpunctuality and that he was found flo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document