Honble PARIHAR, J.–Apart from challenging the interim award dated 21.3.1986 passed by the Labour Court, Kota, holding the respondent No. 1 (the concerned employee) as `workman under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter to be referred to as `the Act of 1947) as also the Reference made by the Government of Rajasthan as maintainable and the departmental enquiry held against the concerned employee to be fair and proper as also the order dated 18.3.1991 passed by the Labour Court, rejecting the review application, the petitioner has also challenged the final award dated 30.3.1992, by which, the concerned employee has been ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits including back wages.

(2). The brief facts of the case are that the concerned employee was appointed as Medical Representative vide order dated 2.2.1976. A charge sheet was served on the concerned employee on 23.4.1982. After holding departmental enquiry, the services of the concerned employee were terminated vide order dated 19.2.1982. On a dispute been raised by the concerned employee, the same was referred to the Labour Court, Kota for adjudication by the State Government vide Notification dated 15.11.1983. The reference was made in the following terms:–

``Whether the contention of the employer, M/s. JB Modi & Bros, Bombay, that Shri MK Chopra, Sales Representative, is not a workman covered by section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? Whether under the service conditions of the said establishment a dispute can be raised in Bombay only, is tenable?

If the above said contention of the employer is not tenable, whether the termination of Shri MK Chopra, Sales Representative, is justified and legal?

If not, what relief he is entitled to ?

(3). The Labour Court, while considering the submissions of representatives of both the sides, held the concerned employee as a `workman as defined under section 2(S) of the Act of 1947. The reference made by the State Government was also held to be within the jurisdiction. The departmental enquiry was also held to be fair and proper in the interim award dated 21.3.1986. However, the dispute was finally to be decided in regard to legality of the termination and discretion under section 11-A of the Act of 1947. After passing of the above award, it appears that a review application had been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking review of the interim award dated 21.3.1986 to the extent the concerned employee had been held to be a workman. The review application was dismissed by the Labour Court vide order dated 18.3.1991 on the ground that no powers of review were available to the Labour Court under the Act. Subsequently, after considering the evidence and material on record, while holding the charges not proved against the concerned employee, the award dated 30.3.1992 was passed by the Labour Court, holding the termination of service of the concerned employee as not legal and justified and ordering reinstatement with all consequential benefits including back wages.

(4). This court, vide interim order dated 9.10.1992, had stayed the operation of the impugned award subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the back wages. The above amount of 50% back wages could be withdrawn by the concerned employee on furnishing a surety as also undertaking to the extent of refunding the amount in case of writ petition been allowed. The petitioner was further directing to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act of 1947. It has been submitted that after depositing 50% back wages, the same has already been withdrawn by the concerned employee. The petitioner has also paid the salary last drawn by the concerned employee under the provisions of section 17-B of the Act of 1947 as ordered by this court.

(5). Learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Management of M/s May and Baker vs. Their Workmen, reported in AIR 1967 SC 678, as also the provi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document