Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2365 (RAJ)

Somdutt v. Labour Court, Bharatpur

2005-09-06

S.K.KESHOTE

body2005
Judgment S.K. Keshote, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the writ petition. 2. The impugned award, dated 212.1991, of the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Bharatpur, passed in LCR-133/87 (20G/85), (Annexure-9) on the face of it is an arbitrary and perverse, and the same cannot be allowed to stand. 3. It is really shocking and surprising that the respondent No. 2 took such a harsh view only on the basis of one days alleged slow work of the workman petitioner. The allegation against the workman petitioner is that on the fateful day i.e. 211.1983 he worked slowly resulting in low production for the respondent No. 2. On 211.1983 itself the workman petitioner was served with the charge-sheet and further he was placed under suspension. Vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition the workman petitioner furnished explanation, which is stated to be not satisfactory. The respondent No. 2 appointed enquiry officer in the matter to hold enquiry, which ultimately culminated in termination of the services of the workman petitioner. The enquiry proceedings initiated against the workman petitioner clearly go to show predetermined decision taken in the matter. It is a clear case of prejudice and unfair labour practice. 4. The Labour Court, though presided over by a Senior Scale RHJS Officer, it is really shocking and surprising, he did not appreciate all the facts and circumstances of the case and proceeded to decide the matter against the workman petitioner. Evidence is not produced on the record before Labour Court nor any finding has been recorded by it that due to one days slow work of the workman petitioner the respondent No. 2 suffered any loss of production and that it is a case of grave and serious misconduct which would have justified this major penalty imposed upon the workman petitioner. The Labour Court still went on to the extent to consider it to be a case of grave and serious misconduct and felt satisfied only to make interference in the quantum of punishment. In my opinion it is a case where the workman petitioner ought not to have been awarded any penalty. 5. As a result of the aforesaid discussion the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The award, dated 212.1991, of the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Bharatpur, in LCR-133/87 (20G/85) is quashed and set aside. In my opinion it is a case where the workman petitioner ought not to have been awarded any penalty. 5. As a result of the aforesaid discussion the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The award, dated 212.1991, of the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Bharatpur, in LCR-133/87 (20G/85) is quashed and set aside. It is hereby declared that the termination of the services of the workman petitioner by the respondent No. 1 is wholly illegally, arbitrary and unjustified. The respondent No. 2 is directed to reinstate the workman petitioner back in the service with all consequential benefits. 6. It is a fit case for award of costs of the litigation in favour of the workman petitioner and against the respondent No. 2. Accordingly the respondent No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/-of cots to the workman petitioner.