JAGRAJSING Vs. ANGLO AMERICAN MARINE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner workman has challenged the award Part-II dated June 10, 1987 passed by the Labour Court in Reference I. D. A. No. 19 of 1982. By its award Part-I the Labour Court has held the inquiry to be fair and proper and findings not being perverse but based on material and evidence on record in respect of the charge sheet dated May 17, 1981. In respect, of the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner on August 1, 1981 the Labour Court has recorded a finding that though the inquiry was fair and proper the findings were perverse. The respondent company has not challenged the, same finding of the Labour Court holding that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were perverse. After recording the aforesaid findings the Labour Court has considered the question of punishment under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act in its Part-11 award. The Labour Court has converted the order of dismissal into an order of discharge, meaning thereby that the punishment of dismissal was reduced to the punishment of discharge. It. appears that to give some amount of compensation the Labour Court has computed the amount of compensation on the basis of the principles of retrenchment and has directed payment of monetary benefits on par with, retrenchment compensation as if he was discharged simpliciter. The Labour Court has given its own reasons for interfering with the order of dismissal in paragraph 3 of its Part-11 award. The Labour Court has considered the fact that there were two charge-sheets issued against the petitioner workman and out of the two charge-sheets one charge sheet has virtually failed and, therefore, he appears to have taken a proportionality of the punishment arithmetically. According to him, when the order of dismissal was passed by the company for two acts of misconducts, out of which one has failed, the order of dismissal should not stand. The second aspect which the Labour Court appears to have considered is that the past record of the workman was taken into consideration by the company. It appears that the Labour Court carried an impression in its mind that the order of dismissal was the cumulative effect of the two charges and his past record. According to the Labour Court, if one charge sheet has failed the punishment of dismissal also should be reduced. Considering this logic the Labour. Court has converted the order of dismissal into an order of discharge simpliciter and has directed the company to pay the petitioner retrenchment benefit by way of compensation. The company has not challenged the said award and has offered the amount of retrenchment compensation to the petitioner who has refused to accept the same. The amount of such compensation computed by the company and offered to the petitioner workman was to the tune of Rs. 2,838/-, which included one month's wages in lieu of notice.

(2.) BY a charge sheet dated May 17, 1981 the Petitioner was charged of an assault on a casual worker who was walking towards the factory to report for work at about 8. 15 a. m. on April 9, 1981. It is alleged against the petitioner that he alongwith one Shri P. K. Bhole stopped him outside the gate of the factory and assaulted and beat up the casual worker (Shri Nerkar) because he was reporting for work during the strike period. The Petitioner was, thus, charged of misconducts of having committed the acts of violence, riotous and disorderly behaviour having a bearing on the working of the factory and commission of an act subversive of discipline. The Petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation which he submitted by his letter dated May 21, 1981 denying the charges being false and fabricated. He even flatly denied the fact that on the alleged day he ever came near the factory and further he never knew who the casual workman was and that he did not know him at all. He further alleged against the company that he was tried to be victimised and maligned as he was an active trade union worker. Since the petitioner had denied the charges the company had instituted a departmental inquiry against him in the charges. In the inquiry, he was defended by an office- bearer of his union. During the pendency of the said inquiry a second charge-sheet came to be served on him on August 18, 1981 whereby it was alleged against him that he had gone to the house of one of the employees and threatened his wife and also asked for money for union. On the very same day i. e. , June 8, 1981 he had also gone to other workman and, threatened him with dire consequences if he did not give money for union. The company had, therefore, called upon him to submit his explanation which he submitted by his letter dated July 7, 1981 denying the charges. It is this second charge-sheet which appears to: have failed as the Labour Court has held the findings of the inquiry officer in this charge-sheet as baseless and perverse. The company has passed an order of dismissal on November 25, 1981 after receiving the report and findings of the Inquiry Officer holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him in both the charge-sheets.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of dismissal the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court by the State Government. The Petitioner challenged the order of dismissal being illegal, improper and an act of victimisation; he being an active trade union worker. On the basis of the pleadings filed by both the parties the Labour Court, by its Part-I award held that the domestic inquiry in the charge-sheet dated May 17, 1981 was fair and proper. The Labour Court also held that the procedural part of the inquiry in the second charge-sheet dated August 18, 1981 was legal and proper but the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer did not flow from the evidence of the said enquiry and, therefore, he struck down the said inquiry being not fair and proper.