Signing the muster without remaining present and attempting to seek wages between 16.9.1983 to 16.11.1983 for 9 days.
A preliminary issue as regards validity or otherwise of the said disciplinary proceeding, which appears to have been decided against the respondent, had been framed.
In these circumstances, I find numberreason to allow full back wages to original petitioner in his appeal.
A writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by a learned single judge of the Bombay High Court stating The Labour Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under this Section, has companycluded that the punishment imposed was disproportionate.
16 of 1984.
By reason of the impugned judgment, an intra companyrt appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.
Hence this Appeal by special leave.
Signing the muster for showing presence on 1.12.1983 on next day.
Both, the Labour Court and the Industrial Court were of the opinion that a lesser punishment of forfeiture of part of the back wages was the punishment which was adequate.
A numberice was issued by this Court only on the quantum of back wages.
Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement, companytinuity of service and full back wages?
The Labour Court, while holding that the respondent had been found guilty of companymitting the misconduct, passed an award of reinstatement with companytinuity of service with 50 back wages on the premise that the punishment of termination from service was disproportionate to the charges of misconduct leveled against him.
The Labour Court did number place any reliance thereupon holding that the appellant had number produced any licence on record to show that the respondent was running the said shop.
He was placed under suspension.
A charge sheet dated 29.12.1983 was issued against him, inter alia, in respect of the following charges Late attendance between 2.7.1983 to 20.12.1983 on 16 occasions.
Disobeying order of Shri Mahadik regarding storage of water on 12.12.1983, refusing to deliver letter as directed by Shri Chavan clerk on 19.12.1983 number attending the office on 14.12.1983 though asked to attend for the purpose of audit.
On the question as to whether the respondent was gainfully employed or number, the Appellate Authority while holding that the provisions of Shops and Establishments Act were number applicable at Patan where the said footwear shop was being run, opined that the Labour Court was companyrect in denying 50 of back wages on the premise that the respondent had been carrying on the said business to meet his both ends.
An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed.
Leaving premises without permission and leave between 2.12.1983 to 20.12.1983 on 6 occasions.
Appellant examined some witnesses to establish that the respondent had been running a footwear shop under the name and style of Amol Footwear.
Whether the enquiry companyducted by the opponent against the applicant is legal proper and valid?
Whether the termination of the employment is a grossly disproportionate punishment?
Respondent filed an Application under Sections 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 before the Labour Court, Sangli praying for his reinstatement with companytinuity of service and full back wages, which was registered as B.I.R. No.
Consequently, I hold that the labour companyrt was companyrect in awarding 50 back wages.
On or about 1.12.1983, a show cause numberice was issued seeking an explanation from him as regards some alleged misconduct on his part.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Appellant herein is a Cooperative Society.
Respondent was appointed as a peon in July 1974.
Apart from the said preliminary issue, the Labour Court framed the following issues Whether the applicant proves that the opponent terminated him from service illegally and wrongfully?
