GRIFFON LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. MAHARASHTRA SHRAMIK SENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an Award of the Labour Court dated 15th December, 1995 upon a reference made by the appropriate Government to adjudication under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the disciplinary enquiry initiated by the employer in the present case stood vitiated on the ground that the charge-sheet was vague. The employer was thereupon granted an opportunity to lead evidence to sustain the charge of misconduct. After the parties adduced evidence the employer in support of the charge of misconduct and the Union in defence of the workmen, the Industrial Court by its Award dated 20th November, 1996 has come to the conclusion that the employer had not proved the charge of misconduct against the charge-sheeted workmen. Accordingly, the Labour Court has directed the employer to pay back wages to the workmen from the date of termination until the date on which they were appointed afresh by the employer. Though the workmen had initially been dismissed after disciplinary enquiry by the employer they were re-employed again by the employer during the pendency of the reference before the Labour Court and consequently the limited question which will survive is as regards the claim of the workmen for back wages from the date of dismissal until their re-employment and for continuity of service that has been granted to the workmen by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has, however, declined to go into the evidence which was adduced by the employer in support of the charge of misconduct holding that in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court, the evidence itself could not be looked at once the charge was held to be vague since the employer had neither formulated a charge before the Labour Court nor had called upon the Court to formulate a charge-sheet containing the charge of misconduct against the workmen. According to the view of the Labour Court once the disciplinary enquiry had been held to be not fair and proper in the Part-I Award on the ground that the charge-sheet is vague, the employer must, before the evidence is adduced before the Labour Court in support of the charge of misconduct formulate an appropriate set of charges before the Labour Court and if this is not done, the enquiry would have to be set aside as being vitiated. The employer seeks to impugn : (i) The Part-I Award in which the enquiry was held to be vitiated due to a vagueness of charges; and (ii) The finding of the Labour Court in the Part-II Award that in the absence of a freshly formulated charge-sheet, the evidence which had been adduced before the Labour Court cannot be looked into.

(2.) THE petitioner before the Court is a Public Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. The petitioner employed about 230 workmen in its factory whose terms and conditions were governed by Industrial Settlement and by certified Standing Orders. From time to time the petitioner engages and recruits temporary workmen depending upon the exigencies of work. A disciplinary enquiry came to be initiated against four workmen, the 3rd to 6th respondents to these proceedings by a charge-sheet dated 15th June, 1992. The employer, by the charge-sheet informed the workmen that a disciplinary enquiry was proposed to be conducted on the basis of the following allegations which formed the foundation of the charge of misconduct:

(3.) THE reply submitted by one of the workmen, the 3rd respondent to these proceedings on 17th June, 1982 has been annexed to the petition. While denying the charge of violence and assault the workman stated that the allegation that he had "assaulted any person is so vague that it fails to give details of the person, place at which he was assaulted and/or threatened, the time on which he was threatened and/or assaulted". The workman therefore contended that the allegations were "patently vague and of generalised character and do not give any indication of misconduct and/or an incident capable of being understood and/or in relation to which any reply is possible to be given". The workmen, therefore, alleged, besides denying the allegation of assault that the allegations were so completely vague so as not to furnish any details which were necessary to understand the basis thereof. Consequently, it was urged that such allegations could not found the basis of any action under the applicable Standing Orders. On 17th September, 1982 the employer responded to the letter dated 17th June, 1982 and informed the workmen that the explanation which had been furnished was not satisfactory and that it was proposed to hold an enquiry into the charges levelled against them. The appointment of the Enquiry Officer was notified. The petitioner concluded the letter by stating that "for obvious reasons" it "had not revealed in the charge-sheet on 15-6-1982 the name of the employee of the company whom you had assaulted and threatened with further dire consequences". The name of the employee was then furnished to the workmen as Mr. J. G. Waje.