By the impugned order respondent number.3 and 4 herein who were workmen in the companycern of the appellant were ordered to be reinstated in service with 40 and 50 back wages respectively till the date of the award of the Labour Court and thereafter with cent per cent back wages till reinstatement.
After the domestic enquiry both these respondents by order dated 04th June 1983 were dismissed from service.
A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings are required to be numbered to highlight the grievance of the appellant management against the impugned order.
Respondent number.3 and 4 field companyplaints before respondent number2 authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act.
Contention of the companyplainants that they were discriminated against was rejected.
The Shift Supervisor was found sleeping in the cabin while respondent number.3 and 4 operators and 10 mazdoors were found sleeping on the terrace of the factory.
1971 hereinafter referred to as the act.
The companynection of these companyplainants was that they were victimised and the appellant management had companymitted diverse unfair practices as companytemplated under Clauses a , b , d , f and g of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act.
For the said misconduct a domestic enquiry was held, after chargesheeting respondent number.3 and 4 charge sheets of even date were issued on 18th May 1982.
The Labour Court in the light of the evidence recorded came to the companyclusion that the appellant company had proved that the companyplainants had companymitted misconducts alleged against them as per the charge sheets dated 18th May 1982.
one on behalf of the workmen and another on behalf of the management.
It was also found that the appellant failed to prove that the companyplainants were gainfully employed since their dismissals on 04th June 1983.
On the night between 5th and 6th May 1982 when they were on duty in the night shift, at about 03.30 a.m. when the Plant In charge one Shri Chandrahasan made a surprise visit, he found respondent number.3 and 4 and 10 mazdoors as well as the Shift Supervisor sleeping though the machine was kept working.
3 and 4 was companyfirmed by the revisional companyrt and a that finding was number challenged by the respondents before the High Court we shall proceed for the present discussion on the basis that respondent number.
The said order of the Labour Court resulted in two revisions.
Background Facts Respondent number.3 and 4 were working the plant of the appellant as Plant Operators.
The appellant companytested these companyplaints.
However, it held that the appellant had companymitted unfair labour practice as per Clause g of Item 1 of the said Schedule.
3 and 4 were guilty of major misconduct.
J. The appellant management by obtaining special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India has brought in challenge the order of High Court of Bombay dated 13th September 1991 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant and companyfirming the order of the Labour Court as further companyfirmed in revision by the Industrial Court, Bombay.
