CHANDRIKAPRASAD MISHRA Vs. BABULNATH MANDIR CHARITIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Returnable forthwith, Mr. Verma waives service for respondent No. 1. Service on respondent No. 2 is dispensed with.

(2.) BY consent, writ petition is heard finally at this stage.

(3.) THE petitioner herein is original complainant in Complaint (ULP) No. 284 of 1992. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a watchman with the 1st respondent herein, namely Shree Babulnath Mandir Charities (for short "employer") since 1980 and his last drawn salary was Rs. 1425. 50 per month. Somewhere in the month of November 1991 the workmen employed by the employer became the members of Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha, a trade union, by resigning their membership from the earlier union, namely, Bombay Labour Union. The petitioner was instrumental in the said change of membership. After the majority of workmen had joined the Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha, the said union filed a complaint of unfair labour practices being Complaint (ULP) No. 1637 of 1991 in the Industrial Court at Mumbai against the employer. The employer was annoyed due to the said action of the petitioner and the union Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha and started victimising and harassing the active members of the union Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha including the petitioner. On 2-1-1992 the petitioner was charge sheeted on the ground of his misconduct and the incident that took place on 2-10-1991. The charges levelled against the petitioner included riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour, assaulting co-workman and commission of act subversive of discipline and good behaviour on the premises of the employer. The Enquiry Officer was appointed by the employer who was not independent. The Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice and in predetermined manner. The report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding the petitioner guilty of the misconduct of the charges levelled against him. By the order dated 15-7-92 the petitioners services were dismissed by the employer. Upon receipt of the dismissal order, the petitioner filed a complaint under Items 1 (a), 1 (b), 1 (c), 1 (d), 1 (f), 1 (g) of Schedule IV the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short M. R. T. U and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971 ). The said complaint was contested by the employer by filing written statement. The Labour Court after recording the evidence, by his order dated 20-2-95 allowed the complaint after holding that the employer has indulged in unfair labour practices and directed the employer to reinstate the complainant with full back wages and continuity of service with consequential benefits. It would be pertinent to note that the concerned Labour Court held that though the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer was fair and proper but the findings of the enquiry officer were not legal and valid and rather perverse. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the 7th Labour Court on 20-2-95, the employer went in revision before the Industrial Court under section 44 of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971. During the course of arguments it appears that a plea was raised by the employer that when the concerned Labour Court held that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were perverse, the opportunity ought to have been given to the employer to justify the misconduct before the Court and since no opportunity was given, the order passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. The Industrial Court was persuaded by the said argument and allowed the revision application partly, remanded back the matter to the Labour Court for deciding the issue of perversity of findings after hearing on merits on that point and directing the Labour Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of the order passed by the Industrial Court. The employer was directed to pay the wages to the petitioner (original complainant) from the date of its order till the matter was decided by the Labour Court. The order passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai on 30-11-99 is impugned in the present petition.