According to the employer, companysequent on the incident, the employee remained unauthorizedly absent for about three weeks.
Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Industrial Court, the employee filed W.P. No.
The employer has questioned the interference with the punishment awarded and the employee, the denial of back wages to him.
The employee filed an appeal challenging the denial of back wages.
Thus, the High Court set aside the decision of the Industrial Court and restored the decision of the Labour Court.
In the appeal filed by the employer, the Industrial Court took the view that the Labour Court acted illegally and perversely in interfering with the punishment awarded on the findings at the enquiry accepted by the Labour Court.
The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved and submitted a report on that basis.
The Labour Court took the view that the punishment of termination inflicted on the employee was punitive in nature.
The employee had been kept out of service till the date of the decision by that Court and that was enough punishment in the circumstances.
On 14.9.1984, based on the findings, the services of the employee were terminated with effect from 15.9.1984.
The employer and the employee have challenged this decision of the High Court in these appeals.
As a companysequence, the appeal filed by the employee claiming back wages was dismissed.
Pursuant to the objections filed by the employee, an enquiry officer was appointed to hold a domestic enquiry.
This meant that the employees reinstatement was ordered but back wages were denied to him.
At the instance of the employee, a reference was made to the Labour Court.
He was charged with violating the service rules of the employer organization.
Therefore, the Appellate Authority, the Industrial Court, set aside the interference by the Labour Court with the punishment awarded and held that the termination of service as a punishment was justified in the circumstances.
A proper enquiry was held.
Thus, the order of termination issued by the employer was upheld.
K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. The appeal C.A. No.
The employer filed an appeal before the Industrial Court challenging the interference with the punishment.
On 19.01.1984, while in employment, he allegedly physically assaulted a superior officer A.K. Singh, Sub Engineer.
The Labour Court did number disagree with the finding at the enquiry either on the inflicting of injuries on the superior officer or on the unauthorized absence and the companysequent violations of the service rules.
He hit him with a tension screw on his back and on his numbere.
The blow on the numbere allegedly resulted in fracture of the numbere and severe bleeding.
A show cause numberice along with a memo of charges based on his assault on the superior officer and his unauthorized absence from duty, was served on him.
