BREACH CANDY HOSPITAL Vs. BABULAL B. PARDESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The workman in the present case, who is the First Respondent in Writ Petition No. 2021 of 1997 filed by the employer and the petitioner in companion Writ Petition No. 111 of 2000 instituted by him, was employed as a general helper in (lie Engineering Department of the Breach Candy Hospital and Research Centre on 1st Jan., 1975. On 13th Jan., 1988 a chargesheet was issued to the workman in which it was alleged that on 11th Jan., 1988, he was on duty between 8 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. At 12.30 p.m. a notice had been put up on the Notice Board outside the Personnel Office and after reading the said notice, the workman along with another workman U. S. Naik, who was an Air-conditioning Plant Attendant rushed towards the complainant Shri Bhaskaran, who was a General Supervisor. Shri Bhaskaran was, at the relevant time, sitting at the table provided for a General Supervisor at the Hospital. The allegation was that Shri U. S. Naik "collared" the complainant and caught hold of his neck in a "hard grip" while the workman in these proceedings twisted the arm of the complainant without any provocation by the complainant. It was further alleged that the workman threatened the complainant by stating that the complainant had incited certain persons whose signatures he had obtained and that the complainant would not be left alive. It was stated in the chargesheet that as a result of the outrageous behaviour, the complainant felt strangulated and had to be hospitalised. In these circumstances, the workman was charged with an act of misconduct falling within Clauses 24(k) and 24(1) of the Certified Standing Orders which read as under :

(2.) An enquiry was then conducted, during the course of which, the employer examined the complainant Bhaskaran, who was the General Supervisor, alleged to have been assaulted by the workman and Shri U. S. Naik, a co-worker. Besides the evidence of the complainant, the deposition of a Ward Boy, Shri Shankar Konkar was recorded in the course of the disciplinary enquiry. The workman in the present case stepped into the witness box in defence to the charges against him. Another witness Shri K. G. Mule, who was a Plant Attendant in the Air-conditioning Unit was also examined. The Enquiry Officer by his report dated 17th April, 1989 came to the conclusion that the charge of misconduct was established save and except for a part of the threat which was alleged to have been administered by the workman to the complainant. The Enquiry Officer concluded that besides the oral evidence of the complainant, which was corroborated by the evidence of the Ward Boy, the written complaint lodged by the complainant with the Management (Exh. 14), the Police complaint (Exh. 16) and the clinical report in regard to the hospitalisation of the complaint (Exhs. 15 and 17) established the charge of misconduct. The Enquiry Officer was of the view that the charge of misconduct was serious since it involved an assault on a co-workman within the Hospital premises. The Enquiry Officer held that Union rivalry between two rival Unions was the main cause and while the workman was entitled to pursue Union activities that could not be utilised for a breach of discipline in the premises of the Hospital. Following the enquiry report, the workman in the present case came to be dismissed from service on 23rd Aug., 1989.

(3.) On a reference to adjudication, the Labour Court in its Part-I Award dated 6th March, 1997 came to the conclusion that the enquiry which had been held by the management against the workman in the present case was in accordance with the principles of natural justice and was therefore, fair and proper. Thereafter, the evidence of the workman was recorded by the Labour Court. On 1st Oct., 1997, the Labour Court delivered its Part-II Award by which the Court came to the conclusion that the findings of the enquiry officer were not perverse. However, the Court held that the punishment of dismissal from service which had been awarded by the employer was shockingly disproportionate. The Labour Court consequently directed that the workman should be reinstated with 70% back wages. In arriving at this conclusion that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate, the Labour Court had regard to the following circumstances viz., (i) that there was no evidence of a bad past record and on the contrary, the performance of the workman had been good immediately prior to the dismissal; (ii) the age of the workman was 48 years and the age of retirement was 60; (iii) considering the nature of the alleged incident and the length of service, the imposition of the punishment of dismissal would be shockingly disproportionate.