AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, C.J.—Although the appeals are barred by limitation and the delay is of 255 days, as this case involves a workman, we consider the appeals on merits.
Mr. G.S. Kannur, learned advocate appearing in support or the appeals, vehemently contends that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in exonerating the workman.
The workman was engaged as a Rubber Tapper. It was alleged that he came late and refused to comply with the directions of the superiors. It was, further, alleged that he used abusive language against the superiors.
A domestic enquiry was held and he was found guilty. The workman approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court held the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. The parties were granted liberty to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases in the Labour Court.
After recording the evidence, the Labour Court held that the charges are not proved. The alleged charges were not proved as the management witness No. 2, in his oral testimony, did not testify for the same.
The Labour Court and the Hon''ble Single Judge, in our View, rightly held that the charges were not proved against the workman. We do not find any merit in the appeals.
The application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are, also, dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the appeals, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, accordingly, dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.