MAHARASHTRA MANTRALAYA AND ALLIED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. RAJU SONU RANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are cross petitions filed by the Maharashtra Mantralaya and Allied Government Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. , and the employee against the orders of the Labour Court in a complaint filed under section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "mrtu and PULP Act") and the order of the Industrial Court passed in revision. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1476 of 1999 and respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 2605 of 1999 is the employer society. The employee is respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 1476 of 1999 and petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2605 of 1999.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these petitions are as follows : On 7-3-1972, the employee joined the service of the Maharashtra Mantralaya and Allied Government Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. , which is the employer herein, as a peon. In 1977, the employee was confirmed in service and was promoted as a clerk on 2-4-1981. A notice was issued to the employee by the employer-society that he had remained absent unauthorisedly. The employee answered this notice dated 25-1-1993 by his reply dated 5-3-1993 and stated that he was on authorised and sanctioned leave. A memo was issued on 10-2-1993 to the employee denying him entry on the ground that he did not possess the required qualifications for a clerk. Allegations were traded between the employer society and the employee against each other through various letters. On 20-4-1994, the employee requested the Chairman of the Society for payment of overtime wages. Instead of this amount being paid to the employee, a campaign against him of harassment commenced, according to the employee. Ultimately, he was reverted from his position of clerk to his original position of peon. Being aggrieved by this, the employee filed complaint (ULP) No. 956 of 1994 challenging his reversion. The reversion order of the society was upheld by the Industrial Court. Writ petition filed by the employee against the order of the Industrial Court was dismissed.

(3.) THE employee was issued a charge-sheet dated 17-6-1994 for certain acts of misconduct including that he had committed mistakes in the work assigned to him and that he was trying to cheat the administration by wrong information in the matter of the loan applications and that he was interferring in the financial loan transactions of members. The enquiry committee constituted to enquire into the charges against the employee came to the conclusion that the employee deserves to be dismissed from service. However, instead of dismissing him, it appears that the society reverted the employee. On 14-10-1994, a second show-cause notice was issued to the employee alleging that he had wrongly scrutinised the loan application of one Shri Hile and that he had remained absent without permission for more than 10 consecutive days. A domestic enquiry was held against the employee on the basis of this charge-sheet. According to the employee, after the evidence of Shri Hile was recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer insisted that the employee should examine himself and did not wait for the evidence of all the societys witness to be completed. As this was in violation of the principles of natural justice, the employee requested the society to change the Enquiry Officer and submitted that great prejudice would be caused if this was not done. The society, however, did not accede to the demand of the employee. The employer proceeded with the enquiry and completed the same. The report and findings of the Enquiry Officer, as submitted to the employer society, show that the Enquiry Officer did not find the employee guilty of any of the charges levelled against him. The employer society did not accept these findings and differed with the same. The society called upon the employee by their letter dated 8-12-1995 to show-cause as to why he should not be dismissed as they had found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer did not consider the past service record of the employee. The employee was then issued order of dismissal on 20-12-1995.