2009 (11) TMI 1040

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Flight Services-Respondent (for short "Management") as a loader on March 10, 1980. Allegedly on August 31, 1986 while returning from duty, the workman was found carrying 30 KLM soup spoons illegally in his shoe. The workman is said to have admitted his guilt in writing on August 31, 1986 itself and then again on the next day i.e. September 1, 1986. The Management acting on the said admission of guilt by the workman, vide order dated September 3, 1986 dismissed him from service. Having been unsuccessful in his representation and legal notice to the Management, the workman raised industrial dispute before the appropriate Government which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Delhi on June 19, 1987. 4. The workman in his statem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....poons could be put in a shoe and that workman walked with the said spoons in his shoe from the work area to the security check area. The Division Bench also noticed that Management having not conducted any enquiry, the dismissal of workman without issuing him charge-sheet or a show cause notice was unsustainable. However, the Division Bench vide his judgment dated March 18, 2008 did not deem it proper to order reinstatement of the workman and instead directed the Management to pay him Rs. 60,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim. It is this part of the order which is under challenge in this appeal. 7. This Court in U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. V. Uday Narain Pandey JT2005(10)SC344 held thus: "41. The Industria....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e terminated in December 1996, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the appellants could have been directed to be reinstated in service. 23. Indisputably, the Industrial Court, exercises a discretionary jurisdiction, but such discretion is required to be exercised judiciously. Relevant factors therefor were required to be taken into consideration; the nature of appointment, the period of appointment, the availability of the job, etc. should weigh with the court for determination of such an issue. 24. This Court in a large number of decisions opined that payment of adequate amount of compensation in place of a direction to be reinstated in service in cases of this nature would subserve the ends of justice. ....