The matter was taken to the Division Bench of the High Court by way of Letters Patent Appeals preferred by both the appellant and the respondent.
A disciplinary proceeding was also initiated.
9 of 2001.
The delinquent workmen were placed under suspension.
The workmen started misbehaving with the said persons using indecent and unparliamentary languages.
I find that there was scuffle between the companytractor and this workman and both shouted against each other which was merely psychological and natural in such a situation and numberhing untoward happened number any injury was caused to anybody.
On the aforementioned allegations, a First Information Report was lodged.
Hence, on the basis of the evidences and the statement, numbered above and the statements of the management witnesses and the statement as W.W/1 and W.W/2.
In the departmental proceedings, they were found guilty.
Krishna Kishore Yadav, Intervenor and one R.P. Singh were employees of the respondent.
So far as the workman Krishna Kishore Yadav is companycerned, similar finding was arrived at by the Labour Court opining From the perusal of the evidences in the statement of W.W/1 and W.W/2 it appears that the Workmen K.K. Yadav received the c sheet dated 18.2.84 on the same day and submitted his explanation within the time limit therein.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court by a judgment and order dated 31.07.2000 refused to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Labour Court.
An industrial dispute was raised whereupon the appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication by a Labour Court, Jamshedpur.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NOs.3051 3052 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP Civil Nos.
They were said to be Union leaders.
On the aforementioned premise, the Labour Court held that numbercharge had been proved against the workmen and as such they were entitled to be reinstated in service.
A writ petition was filed by the appellant questioning the legality and validity of the said Award.
Several issues were framed having regard to the pleadings of the parties by the learned Labour Court.
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court by an order dated 16.08.1990 opined Perused the inquiry report.
However, by reason of a final award dated 17.02.1992, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, while determining the issue as to whether the management had been able to prove the charges levelled against the workmen, upon companysidering the report of the Enquiry Officer, held On the basis of evidences on record adduced on behalf of both the parties and discussions made above the picture companyes out on the surface that in companyrse of demanding First Aid for the workmen by these two dismissed workmen from the management and companytractors caused heated discussions between the companytractors and these workmen who are office bearers of the union and the management has taken side on favour of the companytractors and against these two workmen such probably because of their demand and trade union activities vide ext W/2 series and statements of W/1 and W.W/2 and ext.
He was also assaulted by iron rod by the intervenor herein.
The said appeal was allowed as regards the question posed by the Labour Court as to whether the management had been able to prove the charges levelled against the workmen on the basis of the evidences brought on records.
The same question was asked to Mr. Dara Singh to which also he replied that the grant of making provision of first aid was the duty of the Management and number that of the Contractor.
Discussion therein ensued.
17429 17430 of 2004 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
The workmen were informed by Natarajan that the matter should be discussed with the Personnel Manager of the Company.
The Enquiry Officer was examined before the Labour Court.
348 of 2000 and Letters Patent Appeal No.
Application of Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short the Act , as numbericed by this Court in Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. The Management and Others 1973 1 SCC 813, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is in question in these appeals which arise out of a judgment and order dated 16.02.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The record reflects that the workman K.K. Yadav has taken the c sheet and submitted the explanation responding it and there was power cut on the day of occurrence for some time as well which caused the stopping of the factory.
They were abused in a harsh tone whereto an objection was raised by Shri Dara Singh whereupon he was abused in filthy languages and threatened him with dire companysequences.
M/4 and M/7 and has made a mole to mountain.
Thereafter Shri Dara Singh also picked up an iron rod.
On or about 17.02.1984, the respondent received a companyplaint from one G. Natarajan with regard to acts of misconduct companymitted by the said workmen in the factory premises companytending that while he was having discussions with one Shekhar Rao, representative of the companytractor known as M s. Techno Fab, the said workmen came and asked him as to whether there existed any arrangement for grant of first aid or number, whereto he replied that such a provision has to be made by the Company and number by the Contractor.
With the intervention of the officers and some workers, they were separated.
The said workmen thereafter instigated the workers to stop the work.
R.P. Singh also picked up another iron rod in his hand.
Before the Labour Court, a plea was raised by the workmen that they as Secretary and Vice President of the workers of the Company had gone to Shri Natarajan and others for ventilating their grievances, but the management with a view to victimize them and by way of resorting to unfair labour practices had placed them under suspension.
One Shri Dara Singh, another companytractor being M s. S.D. Construction also reached there.
