IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule in cases of wrongful termination of service, as emphasized in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and Ors.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. I.G. Joshi, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondents.

2. Employer-Company has filed this petition challenging the award of Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No.205 of 2001, wherein the Labour Court while quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal directed the petitioner – Company to reinstate respondent – workman to his original post with continuity of service and also awarded 100% backwages.

3. Facts referred in the petition are as under:

3.1. Petitioner – Company is a factory registered under the provisions of Factories Act, 1948 and engaged in the manufacturing of stainless-steel long products. The Company appointed respondent – workman as Junior Fitter w.e.f. 05.08.1987. The respondent was thereafter charge-sheeted by memorandum dated 21.05.1999. Pursuant to charge-sheet, the inquiry was initiated. Pending inquiry, the respondent by order dated 06.04.1999, was put under suspension w.e.f. 07.04.1999. Upon completion of inquiry, a report dated 06.09.1999 was submitted. Along with inquiry report, a final/second show cause notice dated 13.09.1999 was served to the respondent-workman. The workman submitted his explanation and thereafter order dated 07.11.2000 was passed dismissing respondent – workman w.e.f. 07.11.2000. It is case of the petitioner that along with dismissal order cheque of Rs.19,420/- dated 07.11.2000 was given towards his legal dues. The respondent – workman challenged the order of dismissal dated 07.11.2000, by raising the dispute before Labour Court, Godhra registered as Reference (T) No.205 of 2001. In the reference, the workman also challenged the inquiry proceedings. Upon adjudication, the Labour Court awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and 100% backwages, aggrieved by which present petition is filed.

4. Heard Mr. D.G.Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioner. He submitted that the award of the Labour Court, Godhra is erroneous on the following grounds:

(i) The inquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and most importantly, in the challenge made to inquiry proceedings, the Labour Court held that the inquiry was proceeded in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Once the inquiry was held to be just and legal, no interference in the order of penalty was required.

(ii) In inquiry report dated 06.09.1999, it was recorded that, the respondent – workman created indiscipline situation and he stopped functioning of the factory. In cross-examination, Mr. A.V.Pillai - one of the witness from management side, had stated that the workman stopped functioning of the factory for few hours. This fact was again confirmed by one Mr. D.C.Patel and Mr. Gajanan A.D.; who were other witnesses of the management. Since all the management witnesses had confirmed the fact that the respondent stopped the functioning of the factory, the finding of the Labour Court that the inquiry officer’s report is perverse, is erroneous and contrary to the facts on record.

(iii) The findings of inquiry officer were based on the evidences and examination in chief by witnesses and, therefore, the same did not call for any interference. Pursuant to the report of inquiry officer, the order of dismissal dated 07.11.2000 was passed after issuing show cause notice to the workman calling for his explanation and, therefore, the order of dismissal was appropriate and no interference was called for.

(iv) Placing reliance on order dated 29.09.2012 below Exh.11, learned advocate submitted that the challenge made by the workman, pending reference, in relation to inquiry initiated against him was held to be legal, appropriate and after following principles of natural justice. Once the inquiry proceedings were held to be legal and after following the principles of natural justice, the scope of judicial review being minimal no interference was required. Once the inquiry was held to be appropriate, the Labour Court’s interference with regard to the