5. On the other hand it is contended that the revisional
court has rightly interfered and set aside the interim
order. It is contended that the termination order is
dated 29th May, 2001. The incident is of 25th January,
2001. The complaint (ULP) is filed in 2003 and
application for interim relief filed at that time, is
allowed on 28th September, 2004. Further, my attention is
invited to the termination letter, copy of which is
annexed as Exhibit A and it is contended that the case is
of pilferage and theft. From the cargo section where the
consignments are stored, the petitioner workman pilfered
one consignment which was found to be in torn condition.
He was apprehended and services have been done away with
on the ground that the management has lost confidence. It
is contended that all this will be gone into in detail and
unless and until the case of unfair labour practice is
conclusively proved and action of the company in not
conducting the enquiry is found to be illegal and
vitiated, until then no directions could have been issued
for payment of wages. There is no application of mind in
so far as this aspect and further, even prima facie it is
not indicated by the Labour Court as to why the amount is
directed to be paid to the workman, after 3 years.
