K.S. Jhaveri, J.@mdashSpecial Civil Application No. 3212 of 2003 has been preferred with a prayer to quash and set aside the award dated 16.07.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (L.C.S.) No. 6 of 1991wherein the petitioner was directed to pay the legitimate dues to the respondent.
2. Special Civil Application No. 11648 of 2002 has been preferred by the respondent-party-in-person with a prayer to quash and set the award dated 16.07.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (L.C.S.) No. 6 of 1991 and also prayed for direction to the petitioner-Sangh to reinstate him with full backwages treating hims as on duty from 1990 and also prayed for direction to direct the petitioner-Sangh to give all the monetary and non-monetary benefits to him.
3. The respondent was working as a Clerk and was discharging his duty of the Store Keeper. While discharging his duty under the petitioner Sangh, he has unauthorizedly disposed of the goods of the petitioner-Sangh worth Rs. 73000/-. In vied of the alleged misconduct, the respondent was issued show cause notice and thereafter the managing Committee of the petitioner passed resolution dated 24.07.1990 terminating the respondent from the service w.e.f. 31.07.1990. The respondent therefore raised dispute before the Labour Court, which culminated into Reference (L.C.S.) No. 6 of 1991. After adjudicating the matter, the Laboru Court has passed the award as stated hereinabove. Hence this petition.
3.1 Heard Mr. Kosthi, learned advocate for the petitioner. The respondent-party-in-person remained present before this Court. As a result of hearing and perusing the documents on record, it is found that the departmental inquiry was not conducted against the respondent-party-in-person inspite of the serious misconduct committed by the respondent-party-in-person. The respondent himself has attempted to dispose of 863 cement bags. The Labour Court while considering the case of both the sides has considered that whether the petitioner will be covered by the Industrial Disputes Act and after giving reasons the Labour Court has rightly exercised power u/s 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by converting dismissal of the respondent into discharge. I am in complete agreement with findings of the Labour Court. The petition is therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
4. Since Special Civil Application No. 3212 of 2003 preferred by the petitioner is dismissed, it will not be appropriate to pass order in Special Civil Application No. 11648 of 2002 as there is serious allegation against the respondent-party-in-person. As there is serious allegation against the respondent-party-in-person, he is not entitled for reinstatement. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
