BHARAT FORGE CO LTD Vs. UTTAM MANOHAR NAKATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent herein at all material times was working as a helper in the services of the appellant. At or about 11.40 a.m. on 26-8-1983 while working in the first shift, he was found lying fast asleep on an iron plate at his working place, whereupon a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him in terms of Standing Order 24(1) of the Model Standing Order framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. In the said domestic enquiry he was found guilty whereupon by order dated 17-1-1984 he was dismissed him from his services. It is not in dispute that on three earlier occasions also, the Respondent was found guilty of misconduct; but only some minor punishments had been imposed. Questioning the said order of dismissal dated 17-1-1984, the Respondent herein filed a complaint of unfair labour practice as specified under Item 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the Act) against the Appellant herein before the Labour Court, Pune.

(2.) In the said proceeding, two preliminary issues were framed, namely, (i) whether the enquiry was proper, and (ii) is the finding recorded by the enquiry officer perverse. The Labour Court by its order dated 21-5-1985 held that the domestic enquiry against the Respondent was fair and proper and the finding recorded by the enquiry officer was not perverse. He thereafter proceeded with the case on merits and in terms of its order dated 31-7-1985, the Labour Court held that the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the employee was harsh and disproportionate and no reasonable employer could impose such punishment for the proved misconduct. Consequently, the Appellant herein was directed to reinstate the Respondent on his original post with continuity of service with 50% of the back-wages for the period from 23-12-1983 till his reinstatement.

(3.) Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith both the parties herein preferred separate Revision Applications before the Industrial Tribunal. By a common judgment dated 12-6-1987, the Revision Application filed by the Appellant was allowed and that of the Respondent was dismissed. The Respondent thereupon filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court and by reason of a judgment and order dated 9-2-1995, the said Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. A Letters Patent Appeal there-against was filed by the Respondent herein which by reason of the impugned judgment was allowed directing: