AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajendra Menon and T.K. Kaushal, JJ.—Shri P.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Shri Anoop Shrivastava, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1.
Challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court directing for reinstatement of respondent No. 1 with 50 % back wages, petitioners'' corporation has filed this writ petition.
Respondent No. 1 Shri Mohammed Rafiq Khan was working as a ''Clerk'' in the establishment of the petitioners'' corporation. On the allegation that he refused to comply with the certain orders of the superior authority, an ex parte departmental enquiry has been conducted against him and his services have been terminated. On the basis of the same, the impugned action was taken.
On a challenge being made by the respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court, the Labour Court found that the enquiry conducted against the employee is illegal and, therefore, interfered with the matter and directed for reinstatement with 50% back wages. On an appeal being filed, the Industrial Court has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 also for claim for full back wages and maintained the order passed by the Labour Court which order was upheld by the Industrial Court.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the orders passed by both the Courts below, it is clear that in the matter of holding the departmental enquiry to be illegal, concurrent findings are recorded by both the Courts and the enquiry has not been properly conducted and respondent No. 1 was not given proper opportunity to participate in the enquiry.
The aforesaid findings, concurrent in nature are recorded on the basis of the evidence available on record and we do not find any infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by the Labour Court and affirmed by the Industrial Court. Accordingly, finding no case made out for interference into the concurrent findings, the petition is dismissed.