( 1 ) THE present petition challenges the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court no. 1, Bhopal. The said award is placed on record as Annexure P-l to the petition dated november 7, 1996.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the present case are that the respondent No. 2 was employed as a medical Representative. He was issued a charge-sheet on March 5, 1990. There after, another charge-sheet was issued to the respondent No. 2 on May 8, 1990. A departmental enquiry by the petitioner was conducted against the respondent No. 2. In the said enquiry the was found guilty of the charges and thereafter an order of dismissal dated october 31, 1990 was passed.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 submitted an application for conciliation under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On failure of the said conciliation proceedings the appropriate Government passed an order of reference for the adjudication of the industrial dispute by the respondent No. 1. The terms of the reference are as under:"whether the dismissal of Shri Suresh malik s/o Shri Yashpal Malik is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to and what directions can be given to the employer in this regard?"[translated]

( 4 ) BEFORE the Labour Court, the petitioner and respondent No. 2, both filed their statements of claim. The respondent No. 2 employee challenged the legality and validity of the departmental enquiry conducted by the petitioner. Various grounds were raised by the respondent No. 2 to invalidate the departmental enquiry.

( 5 ) THE Labour Court vide its interim order dated March 3, 1992 held that the departmental enquiry conducted against the respondent No. 2 employee was bad in law for the reasons recorded in the order dated March 3, 1992. After holding the enquiry as illegal, the Labour court, thereafter permitted the petitioner to adduce the evidence to prove the charges. ( 6 ) THE petitioner management examined one witness. They examined Shri L. J. Agarwal who was employed as Area Manager. He was management's witness. The respondent No. 2 examined himself.

( 7 ) THE Labour Court, thereafter, passed its impugned award dated November 7, 1996, which is Annexure P-l to the petition. By this award, the Labour Court directed for the reinstatement of respondent No. 2 with 50% of back wages. This award has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition.

( 8 ) THE respondent No. 2 has also filed a petition before this Court, which has been registered as W. P. No. 575/1997. This petition has been filed by the respondent No. 2 employee for the modification of the award by claiming 100% of back wages as the Labour court directed for 50% of the back wages. Both the petitions were heard jointly.

( 9 ) AFTER when the enquiry was declared illegal, the Labour Court in detail has discussed the evidence of Shri L. J. Agarwal, who was employed as Area Manager and was the management's witness. The Labour Court while considering his statement came to the conclusion that the petitioner management has failed to prove the charges as enumerated in both the charge-sheets. The Labour Court while arriving at a conclusion that no charges are proved against the petitioner, discussed, in detail the statement of Shri L. J. Agarwal. A finding of fact under the circumstances has been arrived at by the Labour Court after when the enquiry was declared illegal. The Labour court came to the conclusion that none of the charges against the respondent. No. 2 employee are found proved, therefore, the Labour Court directed for the reinstatement of respondent no. 2 with 50% of back wages.

( 10 ) BEFORE this Court, at the time of hearing, the petitioner was not represented, therefore, the record of the case is perused.

( 11 ) MANAGEMENT while filing the petition before this Court has raised a ground that reference under Section 10 of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 is bad and is illegal. This ground has been raised by the petitioner on the ground that the Deputy Labour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document