The court highlighted that prior judgments must be honored and reinstatement denied due to misconduct allegations while awarding compensation.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner establishment is aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 08/01/2003, vide which, the respondent original complainant before the Labour Court, was granted reinstatement in service and his Revision (ULP) No. 66/1997 was allowed.

2. The prayers at clauses (C) and (D) in the petition, read as under :-

''(C) To quash and set aside the order dated 8.1.2003 passed by the Hon'ble Member of the Industrial court in revision ULP No. 66/1997.

(D) To quash and set aside the order dated 30.4.1997 passed by the Hon'ble Labour court at Ahmednagar in complaint ULP No. 3/1990.''

3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner partnership firm is one of the largest cloth stores in this part of the State, he tried to contact his client and did not receive any instructions and response. He has still performed his duty of arguing extensively in this matter in the light of the grounds formulated by him in the memo of the petition.

4. The respondent who was admittedly working as a sales person in the shirting section of the petitioner establishment from 1981, approached the Labour Court by preferring complaint (ULP) No. 3/1990, alleging that he was orally terminated on 24/06/1989. Section 25 F of the ID Act was not complied with. No departmental enquiry was conducted under the Model Standing Orders. He prayed for being allowed to work in the shop as usual, but was restrained by the Management. A letter dated 17/07/1989 was addressed to the Management, which was not accepted. He approached the Assistant Commissioner, Labour on 06/09/1989 and as the matter was not settled, he lodged the ULP complaint before the Labour Court.

5. The learned Advocate for the Management points out that an allegation was levelled upon the respondent that while he was working in the shirting section on 23/06/1989, he held the hand of a lady customer in between 3.30 to 3.45 p.m. There were three witnesses. As he misbehaved with the lady customer on 23/06/1989, he was issued with a letter after one month on 25/07/1989 which can be termed as a show cause notice. Thereafter, he himself stopped reporting for duties and has abandoned employment. In this backdrop, neither the Labour Court could have granted reinstatement as a fresh employee by the judgment dated 30/04/1997, nor could the Industrial Court have allowed Revision (ULP) No. 66/1997 filed by the respondent workman granting him reinstatement him service with continuity and full back wages.

6. The learned Advocate for the respondent worker submits that there are several fallacies in the conflicting stands taken by the Management. On the one hand, it is canvassed that the employee had held the hand of a lady and he could not be kept in employment. On the other hand, it is stated that he himself abandoned employment. He then points out the stand taken by the Management that they had issued a notice to the worker asking him to report for duties and then it is stated that a grave and serious misconduct is committed by the workman since he held the hand of a woman. Shri Barde then points out that even after the Labour Court directed induction of the workman as a fresh employee in the service of the Management, the petitioner Management did not challenge the said judgment and accepted the verdict of the Labour Court. In this backdrop, Mr. Barde submits that assuming that he might as well waive the effect of the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court, the Management should implement the judgment of the Labour Court, which it had unequivocally accepted and