P.Jayaraman Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy and Others



Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy and Others

Facts of the Case:
Appellant was appointed as a fitter in the Company in 1981. Owing to his irregularity since 1983, he was warned and a memo was issued for his unauthorised absenteeism. Subsequently he was charge sheeted for the same and held guilty pursuant to a departmental inquiry. He was penalised with pay reduction to minimum scale with effect from 25.6.1986 for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Once again he was charge sheeted for his unauthorised absence in 1986 where he was found guilty. Resultantly, he was demoted from Artisan Grade IV to Semiskilled worker for a period of two years. Again in 1987, the Company issued a memo and conducted departmental inquiry owing to his continuous absenteeism. He was held guilty. Disciplinary authorities, considering his past and the findings of the enquiry officer, passed the order of the removal of the appellant from service of the company.

Subsequent to removal from the service, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. The petition was dismissed and petitioner was directed to raise an Industrial Dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Appellant thereby approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Trichirappalli who referred the matter for conciliation but the dispute was not resolved. Resultantly the Appellant raised the matter before the Labour Court, Trichirappalli. The Presiding officer of the Labour Court passed an Award for reinstating him in service without back-wages, but with continuity of service, excluding the period of absence, which can be treated as Earned Leave which may be adjusted in future.

Both parties filed an appeal in High Court. High Court, allowing the writ petition of BHEL, dismissed the petition of appellant-workman claiming back-wages.

Appellant filed two writ appeals against the orders of Single Judge of High Court before the Double Bench of High Court. When the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant-workman. 

High Court, setting aside the award of the Single Bench, held that the findings rendered by the Labour Court are in accordance with the power conferred upon it under Section 11 A of the Act. The appellant workman is entitled for reinstatement without back-wages, but with continuity of service. The writ petition challenging the rejection of wages is dismissed.


Source: Labour Law Reporter, pg. no. 301, Madras High Court, March 2009


Also Check: Other Legal Aspects


<!-- /15944428/ --> <div id='div-gpt-ad-1604915830963-0'> <script> googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1604915830963-0'); }); </script> </div>