NASIK MADHYAWARTI SAHAKARI GRAHAK SANGH LTD., NASIK & ORS. Vs. SHRI BABUTAL TULSHIRAM JOBANPUTRA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns an order of the Industrial Court dated 6.9.1994 made in Revision Application (ULP) No.4 of 1983 by which the said Court, while maintaining the order of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court, Nasik, modified the order as to hackwages to 50 per cent.

(2.) The first petitioner is a Madhyawarti Sahakari Grahak Sangh, a Consumers' Society, which was dealing in grocery. The first respondent was working as Salesman in the grocery section of the Petitioner-society. He was put inchargc of the grocery section in the shop at Nasik. During the audit of the accounts for the year 1974-75 pertaining to the grocery section, the Auditor noticed a shortage in the collections to the extent of Rs. 7.191.74 Ps. The first respondent was served with a charge-sheet dated 22.7.1975 alleging several misconducts against him including the responsibility for shortage in cash. The enquiry was held to look into the charges and the Enquiry Officer, by his report, held that the charges were proved and, in particular, he held the first respondent responsible for the shortage of cash. On this finding of the Enquiry Officer, the first respondent's services were terminated with effect from 17th Dec., 1975. The first respondent moved the Labour Court, Nasik, by his Complaint (ULP) No. 80 of 1976 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Labour Court recorded evidence and came to the conclusion that the enquiry held against the first respondent was not fair, proper and legal. It also held that the first petitioner was not able to justify the order of termination of the first respondent and further that the first respondent was entitled to reinstatement with full backwages and continuity in service. In the result, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of first respondent with full backwages. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner carried the matter to Industrial Court by his Revision Application (ULP) No.4 of 1983. The Industrial Court substantially concurred with the findings recorded by the Labour Court but was of the view that the cash shortage was, to some extent, attributable to the default on the part of the first respondent inasmuch as he had allowed his superior officers to take away grocery articles without obtaining their signatures on the Credit Book or Jangad Note Book. In this view of the matter, the Industrial Court held that interest of justice would he met if the direction to reinstatement was maintained and the order as to the payment of full backwages was reduced to that of payment of 50 per cent of the backwages. It is this order which has been impugned in the present petition.

(3.) Mr. Shastri, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner society, at the outset, drew my attention to an affidavit dated 8th Aug., 1991, filed by M.B. Salunkhe, Liquidator of the petitioner-society. The Liquidator, after tracing out the circumstance under which he was appointed as Liquidator, has stated in his affidavit that after the order of liquidation was passed the Petitioner-Society has stopped all its business and further that the Society did not have any assets. On these grounds he contends that there could be no question of granting reinstatement nor of giving him any backwages. He says that the society was heavily indebted to the State Government and several other creditors. Since the society has insufficient assets to meet the dues of the State Government and other persons, who have priority in the discharge of their debts, there was no question of payment of any backwages to the first respondent. He has pointed out in his affidavit that on the stay order granted by this Court was vacated, the first respondent had moved the Tahsildar, Nasik, for execution of the orders of the Lower Courts. Upon being satisfied that the Society was in the process of winding tip and that it had no assets and that since its business had been stopped, the Tahsildar, Nasik, took no further action in the matter. Relying on these circumstances Mr. Shastri contended that in view of this subsequent development, the order of the Industrial Court granting reinstatement with 50 per cent backwages to the first respondent should be set aside. In other words, the petition should be allowed. He also attempted to persuade me to take a contrary view on the merits of the matter by urging that neither the order of reinstatement, nor that of payment of backwages, was justified on the merits of the case.