W.P.NO.49'973/2004 ORDER
This writ pctitiozi by a dismissed
directed again’ st the award dated 7.7 .2004 1
A) passed by the 1 Additional
in I.D.No. 198/ 1994. By that:
Labour Court has dismissed ktiae
pefitioner under A_ *i«1;1e
Disputes Act, 1947, as (‘the
Act’); the pem5o;mg a.s m..a order dated
13.09. 1991 .tj§évv.’.§§3a’.1..edi*:Va§le:it-establishment
The petitioner
has dated 11.12.2001
(Axmexvzv:-B) Labour Court holding that
aghast him was fair and
42.’ Ihééfzasfézi. the learned counsel appezaring for
and perused the impugled award at
and the impugned order at Annexure–B.
WV
W.P.NO.49973/’.2004
3. The petitioner, While working as an employeeixi
the respondent-establishment, was subjectedw -.
disciplinary enquiry on the charge that he ‘
to receive the Show cause notice
was issued for his act of
negligence in the maintenanoe”-of-spare’.
Pump resulting in loss to on
9.2.91, at about 1.15 fire as
the burner properly
maintain’ ed “get of production ‘
and replaoem’ T’ of
Thevvvfilxiquity the petitioner guilty of
the charges him. Accordingly, the
irespo1:§ier;.t.esrg.bhshme1:t dismissed the petitioner
from tag dated 13.09.1991. Being
: iv fsaid order of dismissal, the petitioner
agaigxdusmax dispute before the Labour Court
petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Act as
above resulfimg in the award impugned herein.
W
W.P.NO.49973/2004
4. The Labour Court, on a detailed consideI’atioI;_.-of
the evidence on record. held that the domestic ,,
conducted agam st the petitioner was fair and ‘
per the order at Annexure–B. of:
the evidence on record, the Labofir__
that the charges levelled The
Labour Court has also i’o}_1ndA~A of
dismissal imposed on tfiei
In this context, iii: following
observations relating to the
tit”, Q13 :7: on the
petjtzionefi. L 2 A t
V _V “15; V_}\”au}.,’– tosee the punishment
, inspite of telling he was
.. ‘V because of that there was Cl fire
‘ as a rwult there was loss of
loss qfwork ………….. .. 1)”-such
per$6nsa:’ekeptr}1se11tiae, whatwillbethe
ofthe respondent. Today 7.5 HP Water
Pump has been burnt, tomorrow the entire
factory may burn because of the faulty
We
V”of–«-its’ power under Articles 226 &
man or HARYAHA v. mwm
mqan ‘z;9?r7 ac 1512) & new-r.. mwmmmm
“mean was urn. v. a.v1swAmrmAx uun
W.P.NO.’§9973/2004
maintenance by thepettttoner. Since he was
an electrician, the damage that may
even cannat be apprehended. It may A4
damage to the main machinery or to ” ‘
and ltms ofthe hwncm zaemgs.
these cx’r’cumstanoes, the
for tnten”erenoe. It is . V S
cannot be sad % the rs not
5. As the f}-.I1c2i_.r1pg:w.z$;;<})z*ssi1i¢=;i'i'-~by'7 th¢ Labour Court on
the aspect on a proper
consideraticn of .011 record, it is not
permissible Lfo:~ wig interfere with such a
%.$f"thc" of India as hcid by the Hoznfble
w»/W
W.P.NO.49973/2004
6. In my opinion. the impugned award docs
suffer from any legal infirmity to warrant 2
under the extraordinary jurisdiction of A H
under Articles 226 & 227 ofthe Vk
Petition dismssfid. % , _
]t1dge.”;
hkh/Ata