M K BHUVANESHWARAN Vs. PREMIER TYRES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Labour Court in a complaint filed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 set aside the order of dismissal of the workman in question on the ground that though the misconduct had been proved, the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate. In a Revision under section 44 of the Act, the Industrial Court set aside the order of the Labour Court holding that the complaint which had been filed before the Labour Court, was barred by limitation and that the past record of the workman did not justify the order of reinstatement. The order of Industrial Court in allowing the revision and setting aside the order of reinstatement is impugned in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner workman has since attained the age of superannuation and therefore, the grant of relief, if any, can only be in regard to the payment of back wages.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the service of respondent No. 1 on 16-2-1963 as a Peon and ultimately came to be promoted as a Junior Assistant in its establishment at Bangalore. It is common ground between the parties that respondent No. 1 has since been taken over by respondent No. 3 which in consequence, has been impleaded as party to these proceedings.

(3.) SOMETIME in September, 1984, the petitioner came to be transferred from the establishment of the first respondent at Bangalore to its establishment at Bombay. From the record, it emerges that the petitioner had been held guilty of misconduct in a domestic enquiry wherein six out of seven charges were held to have been established. However, in order to give one more chance to the workman, he came to be transferred to Bombay. On 21-8-1985, the workman was on leave allegedly on the ground that he was suffering from a urinary infection. The allegation is that on 28-8-1985, the Personnel Manager of the company wrote a letter to the Doctor whom the workman was alleged to have consulted to verify the veracity of the cause furnished by the workman for being absent. The charge-sheet which was issued to the workman on 14-9-1985 arises out of the sequence of events which is alleged to have taken place after the telephonic call of the Personnel Manager of the first respondent to the Doctor. It is alleged that after the Personnel Manager made a telephone call to the Doctor, the petitioner telephoned the Personnel Manager on 11-9-1985 and asked him in an offensive tone as to why he had resorted to the aforesaid course of action. Thereafter on 12-9-1985, it is alleged that the petitioner workman attended the duties later than the normal commencement of work and entered the cabin of the Personnel Manager. The petitioner is thereafter alleged to have shouted at and insulted the Personnel Manger.