PRECIPENIUM VALVE MANUFACTURERS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above petition arise from a common impugned award dated 30-12-1994 given by the Presiding Officer, 5th Labour Court, Bombay in Reference (IDA) No. 294 of 1986. The parties would be referred to by me as "employer" and "workman",. Both are aggrieved by the said award of the Labour Court and both have filed the above mentioned writ petitions challenging the said award. Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by me by the present Common Judgment and order.

(2.) THE workman was in employment of the employer company for a period of about five years as a Setter-cum-Operator and his last drawn wages were Rs. 27. 35 per day. It is his case that the order dated 21-9-1985 by which he was dismissed from employment is illegal and improper. According to him, the dismissal order is a punitive order wherein the allegation of assault on a co-workman Shri B. K. Raman on the factory premises was levelled against him and he was dismissed on that ground without any charge-sheet and without any enquiry in the alleged charge for which he was dismissed from employment. The workman challenged the legality and propriety of the impugned dismissal order on the ground that no domestic enquiry was held before he was dismissed, and therefore, the dismissal order was in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside and that he should be granted reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. He had therefore raised an industrial dispute and prayed for the said relief. The State Government referred the said dispute for adjudication to the 5th Labour Court, Bombay.

(3.) PURSUANT to the notice from the Labour Court, both the parties completed their pleadings and filing of the documents. The case of the workman in nut-shell as stated hereinabove was that the impugned order of dismissal was illegal and improper as it was not preceded by any domestic enquiry and that he was not given an opportunity of hearing before he was punished by way of dismissal. The employer has admitted that there was no enquiry held by employer company before the impugned order of dismissal was issued. The reason for not doing so was an admission and apology in writing dated 17-8-1985 by the workman. In view of the said apology and admission of the act alleged against him it was bona fide believed that no enquiry was necessary. None the less the employer company had prayed for an opportunity to adduce necessary and relevant evidence before the Court in support of the misconduct and to justify the order of dismissal of the workman. Accordingly the employer company adduced its oral evidence and produced documents and material to substantiate its case of dismissal of the workman as legal and proper. Accordingly the employer company relied upon its oral evidence and also adduced material on record to prove that the workman had committed a serious act of misconduct of assault on his co-workman in the premises of the employer company, as alleged. The employer company examined the complainant workman who was assaulted by the workman and the Partner of the company. The workman examined himself on the merits of the case. The evidence of the complainant-workman who was assaulted has been properly appreciated by the Labour Court. I have myself perused the evidence of the complainant-workman and I find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the employer company had sufficiently proved the act of misconduct committed by the workman. The Labour Court has conclusively found on the basis of the evidence and material on record that a misconduct alleged against the workman was clearly established from the evidence on record. The Labour Court has in clear terms found that workman had categorically admitted that there was a quarrel between him and the complainant-workman on 28th July, 1985 and on account of which the complainant was injured on his head. It was also an admitted fact that the workman was arrested by the Police and that a criminal case was also registered against him. He was prosecuted for offence of voluntarily causing hurt under section 324 of Indian Penal Code. It is also an admitted fact that he was finally acquitted by the Criminal Court. The fact that there was a quarrel and the fact that the complainant-workman suffered injury and he was hospitalised from 30th July, 1985 to 6th August, 1985 and that seven stitches on his head were required to be put, are not disputed at all. The assault by the workman was also corroborated by an eye witness, who was examined before the Court and who had categorically stated that on 30th July, 1985 the workman while on duty had assaulted the complainant on head with steel pipe, as a result of which he sustained bleeding injury on head. The Labour Court has at more than one places conclusively and firmly recorded its finding that a serious misconduct of assault on the complainant workman by the present workman was proved conclusively. In addition to the admission of the guilt the employer company has independently proved the charge by examining the complainant workman on oath and also an eye witness. This finding of the Labour Court is based on evidence and material on record before him and therefore I do not find any infirmity to warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. I am not able to agree with Mr. Ganguli, the learned Advocate for the workman that the finding recorded by the Labour Court is baseless and perverse and that there was material inconsistency and contradiction in the evidence before the Labour Court and the evidence recorded before the Criminal Court. According to Shri Ganguli, it was a case of no material or no evidence.