DAHYALAL MOHANLAL DIWAN Vs. PARANJITSINGH BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-workman appears as party in person and has filed this petition challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal (IC) No. 102/91 dated 27/03/1992 by which the Industrial Court set aside the order passed by the Labour Court as regards the payment of backwages and the payment of cost of Rs. 500.00. The period for which the backwages denied are between November 15 198 8/02/1993 and even according to the respondent-Mill Company the total amount payable to the workman would come to Rs. 91 816.91 ps. (Ninety-one thousand eight hundred sixteen and paise ninety-one only). (This figure has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Mill Company at the time of hearing of the petition. According to the workman the amount would be more and it would be exceeding Rs. one lac. In short the figure is not admitted by the petitioner workman.)

(2.) The petitioner-workman joined the services of the respondent-Mill Company as doffer in the year 1972. He was promoted as reliever in the year 1975 and since then he was working in Ring frame department as permanent workman in second shift of the Mill Company. He was a member of the Joint Management Council and was union representative of the Textile Labour Association. In this capacity he used to represent the cases of workmen before the management. According to the workman on account of such activities the management had developed prejudice against him and often tried to victimize him. That he had filed complaint in relation to the alleged false birth date of Head Time-keeper Shri Jethabhai Mehta and his continuation in service and the complaint was sent by the criminal Court for police investigation. That from 3/11/1988 to Novem 6/11/1988 he was suspended and thereafter a show of inquiry was made against him and on 15/11/1988 his services have been terminated. Therefore he filed T. Application No. 10/89 under Section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 before the Labour Court praying that he be reinstated in service with full backwages.

(3.) The allegation against the workman was that on the date of payment of bonus amount as he inquired about the lesser amount mentioned in the slip of bonus amount payable to him he was told by Shri Jethabhai the Head Time-keeper that he should come on the next day. Thereupon he got excited and abused said Jethabhai and threatened him saying that as and when he comes out he will see him. It is also alleged that at this time he had spoken abusive language. On the aforesaid allegation inquiry was held between 7/11/1988 and Nov 12/11/1988 and ultimately the order of discharge from service dated 15/11/1988 was passed. As indicated hereinabove the workman filed T. Application challenging the legality and validity of the order of dismissal before the Labour Court under Section 78 of the BIR Act. The Labour Court held that there was no procedural irregularity in holding the departmental inquiry but the finding arrived at in the departmental inquiry was perverse. The Labour Court also found that the order of dismissal from service passed against the workman was not just and reasonable and by its judgment and order dated 28/10/1991 directed that the workman be reinstated in service on his original post with full backwages and be also paid Rs. 500.00 (Rupees five hundred only) as and by way of cost of the application.