IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages is the normal rule in cases of wrongful termination of service, subject to various considerations.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Kshitij Vakil, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1.

2. Workman has filed this petition challenging the award of the Labour Court, Vadodara 10.08.2016, wherein reference filed by the workman was partly allowed directing to reinstate without backwages. Cost of Rs.2500/- was also awarded.

3. Brief facts referred in the petition are as under:

3.1. The petitioner – workman was working as watchman in the respondent – Company from 18.06.1996. He was served with show cause notice cum charge-sheet dated 24.02.2001, for the misconduct referred in the charge-sheet. Inquiry was conducted and order of dismissal dated 02.08.2001 was passed. During inquiry proceeding, the workman was put under suspension w.e.f. 20.02.2001. The order of dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court registered as Reference (LCB) No.1080 of 2001. Upon adjudication, the Labour Court, Vadodara directed the respondent – Company to reinstate the workman with cost of Rs.2500/-. Since, backwages were not awarded and continuity was not referred, the workman preferred present petition.

4. Heard Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned advocate for the petitioner – workman and Mr. Kshitij Vakil, learned advocate for the respondent – Company.

5. Mr. Singh, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that award of the Labour Court dated 10.08.2016, is erroneous since as contended before the Labour Court, the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct. Considering the disproportionate punishment, the Labour Court considered reinstatement, however, no backwages were granted and, therefore, the award deserves to be interfered with. He submitted that, it is evident from the charge-sheet that certain staked wooden sticks cut from the trees were found in factory compound and it was not a case that something was stolen from the factory premises. It was at the best case of negligence and as stated in the explanation by the workman that wooden sticks were cut from the trees and kept in factory compound as per the instructions of superior officer. Learned advocate fairly submitted that inquiry was conducted after following due procedure and the same was just and legal. The order of the Labour Court, Vadodara dated 02.02.2012 holding the inquiry as just and legal was not challenged by the workman. However, since the backwages by taking into consideration the 27 years of service, has not been granted this is a fit case to award backwages. Further, after termination, pursuant to the award of the Labour Court dated 10.08.2016, the workman was reinstated in the year 2017 and thereafter, he worked diligently till the age of superannuation. Considering the past record and the period for which, the workman had worked coupled with the fact that no loss caused to the company, his case may be considered for grant of backwages as also continuity of service. In support of his submissions, that past record is required to be taken into consideration, when the penalty is disproportionate to the misconduct, he relied upon decision of the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. vs. Harisingh reported in (2015) 8 SCC 272.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Kshitij Vakil, learned advocate for the respondent – Company submitted that the inquiry proceedings were challenged by the workman and the Labour Court vide order dated 02.02.2012, held the inquiry to be just and legal. Therefore, once the inquiry was held to be just and legal, no interference is required in the quantum of punishment. Further, order of the Labour Court dated 02.02.2012, holding the inquiry just and legal was not challenged by the workman at the relevant time. The same has been challenged in the present petition along with the award and, there being delay of more than 5 years, this petition may not be entertained. During inquiry proceedings, conduct of the workman was not proper and hence despite opportunities, he remained absent an