CW– 3935/95 – Raj. State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. Judgmetn dt.10.9.08 1/3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3935/1995 Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 10th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. V.K. Agarwal for the petitioner. Mr. G.R. Goyal for the respondents. --------- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-employer submits that the learned Industrial Tribunal while upholding the termination of the respondent-employee on the proved misconduct of the dereliction of duty could not order the termination of the respondent employee from the date of award itself i.e. 18.1.1995 whereas the service of the respondent-employee were terminated by the petitioner – Ganga Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. w.e.f. 20.2.1987. He relies upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Engineering Laghu Udyog Employees' Union Vs. The Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal and another - AIR 2004 SC 4951 in which the Hon'ble Supreme court has laid down as under:- “Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 confers a wide power upon the Labour Court, Tribunal or the National Tribunal to give CW– 3935/95 – Raj. State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. Judgmetn dt.10.9.08 2/3 appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen. While adjudicating on a reference made to it, the Labour Court, Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case ma be, if satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, while setting aside the same, direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. Thus, only in a case where the satisfaction is reached by the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, that an order of dismissal was not justified, the same can be set aside. So long as the same is not set aside, it remains valid. But once whether on the basis of the evidence brought on record in the domestic inquiry or by reason of additional evidence, the employer makes out a case justifying the order of dismissal, such an order of dismissal cannot be given effect to only from the date of the award but from the date of passing of the order of punishment. In the instant case, the charges were proved before the Labour Court, the order of termination would relate back to the date of original order.” 3. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is very clear that the Industrial Tribunal has erred in upholding the termination of the respondent employee w.e.f. the date of award itself. CW– 3935/95 – Raj. State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State & Ors. Judgmetn dt.10.9.08 3/3 4. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed in terms of aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is held that the termination of the respondent employee be effected from 20.2.1987 and not from 18.1.1995 as held by the Industrial Tribunal. No order as to costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.__ babulal/-