RAVINDRA SHARMA Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kamlesh Lohani, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vijay Sinha and Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner is a workman and is also a Trade Union Leader and, in furtherance to his union leadership espousing the cause of the workers, the workman barged into the personnel department of the factory, unauthorisedly alongwith his cronies shouting and abusing the management at the top of his voice. It is alleged that he not only abused in filthy language to the officers but forcibly tried to snatch the papers relating to the applications being invited for appointment on an ad hoc basis. When this did not succeed, the petitioner is alleged to have abused in a filthy language to the officer concerned and disrupted the production work, which was going on. As a result of this, all production and industrial activities stopped from 11 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. On account of this misconduct, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him. The petitioner submitted a reply and since the reply was not found satisfactory, a departmental enquiry was initiated and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges and defended himself in the enquiry proceedings. Full opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself and to cross-examine the witnesses of the management. Eventually, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report in which he gave a categorical finding that the charges levelled against the workman stood proved. Based on the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice. It is alleged that contents of the show cause notice was read by the workman but, thereafter he gave it back and refused to acknowledge the receipt of the show cause notice. It is alleged that consequently, the management sent the show cause notice by registered post at the last known address given by the workman. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the material evidence that has been brought on record passed an order of dismissal dated March 4, 1997.

(3.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of termination raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The terms of the reference order was somewhat like this. "Whether the employer was justified in dismissing the services of the petitioner w.e.f. March 4, 1997? If not to what relief the workman entitled to before the Labour Court."