The court emphasized that a workman's classification under the Industrial Disputes Act validates the Labour Court's jurisdiction, and proportionality of punishment must align with inquiry findings.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. Thakker, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.S.P.Majmudar waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Junagadh, in Reference (T) No. 08 of 2018, whereby the Labour Court directed the present petitioner–Trust to reinstate the respondent to his original post with continuity of service, 50% back wages, and all consequential benefits, along with costs of Rs.1,000/-.

3. petitioner–Trust is engaged in religious activities and is responsible for the management and upkeep of the Somnath Temple, along with other associated temples, guest houses, and facilities for pilgrims visiting for darshan. The Trust is primarily funded through public donations and employs both part-time and full-time staff to carry out its activities. The respondent was initially appointed as a Poojari at the Aghoreshwar Temple vide appointment letter dated 31.08.1990. His services were confirmed by office order dated 06.02.1991, with effect from 01.01.1991. During the course of his employment, the petitioner issued communications dated 30.10.1990, 05.03.1991, and 23.09.1992 to the respondent, citing negligence and irregularity in the performance of his duties. Subsequently, a show-cause notice cum charge sheet dated 18.05.1993 was issued, alleging that the respondent was not performing Pooja regularly at the Aghoreshwar Temple and was engaged in personal business during working hours. Despite repeated warnings, the respondent continued to remain irregular, including not performing the Aarti on 05.03.1991 and being absent again on 15.05.1993. In view of the above, the respondent was placed under suspension pending a departmental inquiry. He submitted his written explanation on 20.05.1993. Thereafter, he challenged the suspension order by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 107 of 1993 before the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Veraval. In response, the petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By judgment and order dated 21.12.2004, the plaint was ordered to be returned for presentation before the court having appropriate jurisdiction. The respondent preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2005 against the said order, which was subsequently withdrawn by him on 20.02.2009. Meanwhile, the inquiry proceedings were conducted by various inquiry officers appointed by the petitioner–Trust. Initially, Shri Acharya was appointed, and upon his inability to proceed, Shri Girishbhai Vaidya was appointed. Eventually, Shri V.D.Zinzuvadia was appointed to conduct the inquiry. On conclusion of the domestic inquiry, the final report dated 30.03.2006 was submitted, wherein the charges leveled against the respondent were found to be proved. Accordingly, the respondent was terminated from service vide order dated 31.08.2017. Aggrieved by the said termination, the respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the learned Labour Court, Junagadh, and registered as Reference (T) No. 08 of 2018. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Labour Court passed the impugned award, directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service, 50% back wages, consequential benefits, and costs of Rs.1,000/-, which is under challenge in the present petition.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Shukla for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Majmudar for the respondent.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla, at the outset, fairly concedes that with regard to the industry, as per settled law, the