JUDGMENT :

K.M. Thaker, J.

In the captioned petition, the petitioner, which is a cooperative society of employees working in a Company named Ahmedabad Electricity Company, has brought under challenge an award dated 17.1.2008 in Reference (L.C.A.) No.87/2003 whereby the Labour Court, Ahmedabad has directed the petitioner society to reinstate the respondent employee without benefit of back wages. Aggrieved by the said direction, the petitioner society is before this Court.

2. The facts involved in present case, as emerging from the record of the petition, are as follows:

3. It transpires that the respondent workman was working as clerk from 28.12.1996 with the petitioner society. It appears that the society undertakes the activities of employees' welfare and extending financial assistance to its members, and for the purpose of carrying out its activities, it also employs certain employees who are not the workmen in the said company. The respondent No.2 was one of such employees and he was employed as clerk by the petitioner society since December 1996. It also emerges from the record that due to certain reported acts of omission and commission which, in view of the petitioner's society, constituted misconduct on the part of the respondent workmen, a show-cause-notice dated 31.7.2000 levelling about 7 charges was issued and explanation with regard to the charges mentioned in the notice was called for from the respondent. Thereafter an Inquiry Officer was appointed who conducted a departmental inquiry. Upon conclusion of the proceedings of the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding, inter-alia, that the charges were proved. The disciplinary authority took into account the findings of the Inquiry Officer and agreed with the Inquiry Officer. Hence the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 16.12.2000 terminating the service of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said termination order, the respondent claimed, by a notice, that he should be reinstated with all benefits. It appears that the said demand of the respondent was not accepted by the petitioner society and therefore the respondent approached the Conciliation Officer of the Act after period of about more than two and half year. Upon failure report by the Conciliation Officer, appropriate Government made an order of reference dated 22.1.2003.

The order of reference culminating into Reference (L.C.A.) No.87 of 2003.

4. During the proceedings of the said reference, the petitioner herein stipulated that it does not challenge the legality and propriety of the departmental inquiry. It was, however, clarified by the respondent that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were not acceptable and the same would remain under challenge.

5. Subsequently oral evidence of the respondent was recorded, he was subjected to cross-examination and thereafter the petitioner society only relied upon the documentary evidence produced on record, mainly the proceedings of the departmental inquiry, and did not examine any witness. Thereafter, upon hearing the submissions of the contesting parties, the Labour Court passed award dated 17.1.2008 directing the petitioner society to reinstate the respondent without benefit of back wages.

6. It is pertinent that the Labour Court, in the award, has recorded that the departmental inquiry conducted by the petitioner society was legal and proper. In view of the initial challenge against the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the Labour Court has, it is noticed from the award, examined the findings and held that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were also legal and were not perverse as alleged by the respondent. Thus, even after arriving at the conclusion that inquiry was legal and the findings were not perverse, the Labour Court has directed the petitioner society to reinstate the respondent. The said direction has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 11-A of the Act on the ground that in view of the Labour Court the q