MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD Vs. N B NARAVADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against an order dated 23-8-2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing an appeal filed by the Management against an order of the learned single Judge who in turn had confirmed the award of the Labour Court which while upholding the finding of the domestic inquiry that the respondent-workman herein had committed the misconduct charged against him interfered with the quantum of punishment awarded to him still chose to alter the punishment of dismissal to one of reinstatement with continuity of service and 2/3rd back-wages w.e.f. 5-3-1993.

(2.) The basic facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: It is stated by the appellant-Management that the respondent-workman was initially appointed by it on temporary basis from May, 1978 and was made permanent on 9-8-1981 and was designated as a fitter in the Chassis Assembly Department of the appellant industry. With reference to an incident which took place on 7-11-1991 wherein it is alleged that the respondent workman used abusive and filthy language against his supervisor, an inquiry was instituted against the said workman and the Inquiry Officer after considering the material produced in the proceedings before him found him guilty of misconduct and recommended his dismissal and based on such recommendation service of the respondent was terminated by the disciplinary authority on 5-3-1991.

(3.) At the instance of the workman a reference was made for adjudication of the dispute to the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its order dated 5-9-1996 held that the charge-sheet issued to the respondent-workman was vague. Hence, the Management issued a fresh charge- sheet and initiated a fresh inquiry in which both the parties led evidence and the Inquiry Officer on consideration of such evidence once again came to the conclusion that the alleged misconduct was proved and the said misconduct attracted a punishment of dismissal under the standing orders of the Management, accordingly proposed his dismissal which was accepted by the disciplinary authority and the respondent-workman was dismissed from the service.