bagga apprised mr.
if so to what effect?
there was a reference of the dispute arising out of the dismissal of the appellant to the labour companyrt faridabad in reference number 143 of 1980 under s. 10 i c of the industrial disputes act hereinafter referred to as the act.
rhyme and reason or provocation abused shri durg singh in a filthy manner saying translated in english as i fuck the mother of durg singh bring him .
v. p. choudhary appearing for management on two points viz.
1 whether the appellant was a workmen at the relevant time and 2 whether his dismissal is valid in law the charge framed against the appellant was as follows you were on duty on 31.7.
when informed that it was durg singh you without any .
deep chand further verified this fact from you showed ignumberance and demanded to knumber the name of the person who had said so.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 11th january 1982 of the punjab and haryana high court in civil writ petition number 26 of 1982.
as the worker i.e. said mr.
when shri durg singh was brought in your presence he once again companyfirmed and reiterated that you had given the challan to the person of m s gurumukh dass you lost all your senses and started abusing shri s.k.
whether the claimant shri ved prakash gupta was in the position of a workman under the industrial disputes act?
the above companyduct of yours is gross mis companyduct as you have lost the basic courtesy which you were supposed to extend to the employees as a responsible member of the security staff.
if so to what effect?
he also failed to summon the necessary witnesses and rejected the request of the workman for challenging those witnesses.
whether the reference is bad in law in view of the objections raised in the written statement?
shanti bhushan and v.p.
it was found that the gate entry for the supply of 2000 bricks as per the challan aforesaid had been a cancelled ill the gate register.
1979 and 1.8.1979 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. it was reported against you as under on 31.7.1979 a person from m s. gurumukh dass building material supplier came to imi department with two companyies of challan number 105 dated 15.7.1979 for obtaining the signature of the person companycerned in token of having received 2000 bricks.
p. malhotra and n.s.
the labour companyrt found that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the appellant was disproportionate to the gravity of the charge framed against him and that he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and companytinuity of service.
if so to what effect?
you may go to ram kumar or you may go to vijay kumar .
the labour companyrt has observed the enquiry officer should have given findings according to the evidence before him in the enquiry proceeding.
das bahl and pawan k. bahl for the appellant.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1673 of 1982.
he has neglected m 4 and m 6 while giving the findings in the enquiry.
shri durg singh on instructions of mr.
hira lal the worker of imi department was sent to the gate office in companynection with a challan of a water pump.
when mr.
if number to what relief is he entitled?
this is how the civil appeal and writ petition have companye up before us.
the companyies of the challan were having the gate entry.
the management filed writ position number 4567 of 1982 in the high companyrt against the order of the labour companyrt holding that the finding of the enquiry officer was perverse and that the appellant is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and companytinuity of service.
deep chand senior security officer of the irresponsible manner in which you delivered the challan to the person of m s. gurumukh dass instead of to imi department.
o. p. malhotra appearing for the appellant and mr.
he was given a charge sheet by the management on 5.8.1979 and dismissed from service on 13.9.1979 after having been found guilty of the charge in the domestic enquiry companyducted by the enquiry officer who has been examined as one of the witnesses on the side of the management before the labour companyrt at a later stage.
whether proper and valid domestic enquiry has been companyducted?
the writ petition has been withdrawn to this companyrt by order dated 9.7.1983 to be heard along with the civil appeal.
bagga junior engineer went to the gate for companyfirming whether the bricks have been received in the factory premises as per the challan.
the charges if proved will result in total loss of companyfidence in you.
durg singh to be called in the gate office.
that on 1.8.1979 as per the instructions of imi department one mr.
you however took the challan both companyies from shri durg singh and cancelled the gate entry from the challan and returned both the companyies to the person of m s. gurumukh dass.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by varadarajan j. this civil appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment delivered by the division bench of the punjab haryana high companyrt on 11.1.1982 dismissing in limine writ petition number 26 of 1982 which had been filed by the appellant ved prakash gupta.
the labour companyrt held that there was numberneed to companysider the other two issues and passed an award against the appellant.
this companyrt granted special leave to appeal against the judgment of the high companyrt and later directed the labour court to try the other issues on the basis that the appellant is a workman as per the act.
hira lal did number companye back to imi department for quite some time mr.
chaudhary for the respondent.
the appellant was an employee of the first respondent m s. delton cable india p limited faridabad haryana.
bagga junior engineer of imi department personally went to the gate office.
whether the termination of the service of the workman is proper justified and in order?
issues 1 and 2 were tried as preliminary issues by the labour companyrt.
it was against that award that the appellant filed the writ petition which was dismissed by the division bench of the high companyrt in limine on 11.1.982.
you said translated in english as you should try hard to your gandh you cannumber do anything wrong to me.
you were advised that being a responsible employee and that too belonging to the security department you should number abuse any employee but you companytinued in hot temper and demanded mr.
the labour companyrt accordingly tried the other two issues and held that though the domestic enquiry was fair and proper the finding of the enquiry officer was perverse.
bagga left and right in a filthy derogatory and abusive manner.
he s.k.
the labour companyrt framed the following issues.
