The main legal point established in the judgment is that once an enquiry is declared fair and proper by the High Court, the Labour Court cannot re-evaluate the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.

( 2 ) BY this Petition which is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india, petitioner is challenging Part-II award passed by the Labour Court whereby Labour court was pleased to hold that the punishment awarded by Enquiry Officer was not just, fair and proper and the punishment of dismissal of workman given by the petitioner herein was disproportionate to the misconduct which was alleged against the workmen and, secondly, the order of termination was quashed and set aside. The said punishment was modified with the punishment of reprimand with loss of wages till their termination and, thirdly, the petitioner herein was directed to reinstate the workmen with continuity of service and full backwages till 22/7/1985.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts are as under:-

( 4 ) PETITIONER is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and had a factory at Kalve, District Thane and it was engaged in manufacturing of electric motors. Respondent No. 1 is a registered trade union. There was a dispute and difference between the petitioner and some of its workmen. According to petitioner herein, on 6/7/1979, petitioner received a letter from the 1st respondent informing it that all workmen had joined respondent No. 1 to represent them as the sole bargaining agent and, consequently, the petitioner should not enter into any agreement or settlement with recognized Union or a group of workmen. According to the petitioner, services of one mr. Bhagwan Gawde were terminated by the petitioner for misconduct on 30/7/1979 and, on the same day, five workmen approached the Director of the petitioner and asked him to take back the said Mr. Bhagwan Gawde which request was turned down by the company. It is the case of the petitioner that these workmen stopped the work and also instigated other workers to stop the work. According to the petitioner, they also switched off the electricity connection of the machine shop and other departments at 4. 30 p. m and, as a result, the work in 2nd shift came to stand still which position continued till 23/8/1979. It is also alleged that two other workmen switched off the electricity connection of the Drilling Department and Machine Department.

( 5 ) PETITIONER issued lockout notice dated 9/8/1979 informing the workmen that they intended to give effect to the said notice from 25/8/1979. However, since 80 workmen reported for work on 23/8/1979, the petitioner gave an intimation to all workmen by Registered post A. D and under certificate of posting to report for duties and informed them the intention of the petitioner not to give effect to the lockout notice. Petitioner also gave intimation to the Assistant Commissioner of labour vide letter dated 3/9/1979. Respondent no. 1 addressed a letter to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had prevented workmen from resuming duties since 30/7/1979 and, thereafter, workmen reported for duties. However, they were advised that except suspended workmen, other may resume duties. However, the workmen did not accede to the request made by the petitioner herein. Accordingly, charge-sheet was served on all the workmen. A reply was given by the concerned workmen and the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and came to the conclusion that the charges against the said workmen had been proved and the workmen were dismissed from services of the petitioner.

( 6 ) PETITIONER filed Complaint (ULP) No. 30 of 1982 for a declaration that the strike was illegal. Respondent No. 1 filed their statement of claim. Written statement was filed by the petitioner. Labour Court passed Part-I award dated 6/1/1995, holding that the enquiry conducted against the workmen concerned was invalid and permitted the petitioner to prove the charges before the Court. Against this order, petitioner filed writ petition in this Court