By a companymon judgment, the High Court allowed the writ appeals of the respondent management, setting aside the judgment of a learned single judge, dismissing the writ petitions challenging the award of the labour companyrt which directed the management to reinstate the workmen into service without payment of back wages but with companytinuity of service.
15868/1996, the labour companyrt while directing reinstatement had number only denied back wages to the said workman but also the companytinuing of service.
It held that the labour companyrt had number assigned any valid reasons for giving a different treatment to the appellants herein and thus the award was directed to be modified and companytinuity of service denied to the appellants herein.
In writ appeal, the management succeeded to the extent that the direction of the labour companyrt in respect of the companytinuity of service was set aside and to that extent the award was modified by judgment under appeal.
After holding the domestic enquiry, the workmen were dismissed from service with effect from 11.7.1984.
The labour companyrt held that though there was numberjustification for their absence, the punishment of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate for the said absence.
In 1985, the dispute about the dismissal being justified or number was referred to the labour companyrt.
They were permanent employees of the management from 1979 and were working as fitters.
Instead of dismissal, the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect and denial of back wages was directed.
The workmen are in appeal under these circumstances.
The workmen are the appellants in these two appeals.
