LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD Vs. RAJNIKANT RAGHUNATH BELEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a full-dressed trial, the Presiding Officer of the 1st Labour Court, Bombay, vide his order dated August 31, 1983, held that the termination of the 1st respondent by the petitioner-company vide its letter dated 9. 7. 1979 was not termination simplicitor under Standing Order No. 21, but dismissal and amounts to unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). The learned trial Judge accordingly declared that letter of termination of service dated 9. 7. 1979 is bad and illegal and directed the petitioner-company to cease to engage in the unfair labour practice and to reinstate the 1st respondent with continuity of service and full back wages with effect from the date of termination. It is this order of this Labour Court which is the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a Limited Company. The 1st respondent was an employee, whose services were terminated vide letter dated 9. 7. 1979 by the petitioner-company.

(2.) IN order to appreciate rival contentions I may briefly summarise the pleadings of the parties as under: the 1st respondent on receipt of the termination order dated 9. 7. 1979 ,filed complaint (ULP) No. 100 of 1979, alleging that the Petitioner-Company is guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act and also prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. It is averred by the 1st respondent that he was a permanent employee of the petitioner-company for last 11 years. He averred that he has excellent record of his service. At the relevant time, he was working as Die Maker in Tool Maintenance Assembly Department. The 1st respondent also made a reference to three merit Awards awarded to him by the petitioner-Company for his meritorious work. By letter dated 9. 7. 1979, petitioner-Company terminated the services of the 1st respondent with immediate effect, in exercise of the powers under Standing Order No. 21. It was alleged by the petitioner company that on June 20, 1979 at about 7. 30 p. m. the 1st respondent was found sharpening a weapon commonly known as Kukri (knife) having 12 inches blade on the grinding machine of the company in its premises. On the basis of this incident, the petitioner-Company concluded that the 1st respondent was in possession of a lethal weapon on the premises of the company during working hours. This act of the 1st respondent has shaken Company's confidence and, therefore, his services came to be terminated. It is common premise that no charge sheet or memo was given nor any enquiry was held against the 1st respondent. It is alleged by the 1st respondent that termination letter dated 9. 7. 1979 amounts to dismissal without holding any enquiry. The termination also amounts to victimisation and not in good faith but colourable exercise of the Company's right. Action of the petitioner-Company is thus mala fide. Therefore, the termination order be set aside and he be reinstated with continuity of service with full back wages. The petitioner-Company vide its written statement (Ex.-C) contested the complaint. It is averred by the petitioner-Company that the 1st respondent was neither discharged nor dismissed from service by the petitioner-Company but, according to them, company had taken action under Standing Order No. 21 and as such, there is no unfair labour practice falling under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act. According to the petitioner-Company, simple termination under Standing Order No. 21 cannot be termed as unfair labour practice. Petitioner-Company further averred that the 1st respondent was found in possession of Kukri, At the relevant time he was sharpening the blade on the lathe belonging to the petitioner-Company, during working hours. According to the petitioner-Company, services of the 1st respondent were terminated by way of simple termination. The petitioner-company then averred that there has been rivalry between Bharatiya Kamgar Sena and the Union of Datta samant and as a result thereof, there were several incidents which led to violence and on occasions company had to close the factory. Petitioner-Company then gave several details as regards activities of both these Unions as well as the members of the respective Union. The 1st respondent although originally belonged to Bharatiya Kamgar Sena, later on switched over to datta Samant Union and in fact he is an office-bearer. Having regard to the past conduct of the 1st respondent, petitioner-Company has lost confidence in him and, therefore, instead of holding any enquiry the petitioner-Company has terminated the services of the 1st respondent by way of simple termination in exercise of power under Standing Order No. 21. The petitioner-Company has neither victimised the 1st respondent nor committed any unfair labour practice under the Act. Complaint filed by the 1st respondent is false and the same may be dismissed.

(3.) BOTH the parties led evidence at the trial. The learned Trial Judge framed as many as 6 issues and recorded his findings. The relevant findings of the Trial Judge are as under: the complaint filed by the employee was not barred by limitation; the termination of the 1st respondent was not by way of victimisation; termination of the 1st respondent amounted to unfair labour practice. Consistent with these findings, the learned Trial Judge ordered that the 1st respondent be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. It is this order made by the learned Trial Judge is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.