SUBHASH DHANANJAY INAMDAR Vs. RAJSHRI PICTURES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-workman was employed by the, first respondent-company as an Assistant accountant under an appointment letter dated February 16, 1979. His services were terminated by a letter dated June 19, 1981 in the following terms:

(2.) THE petitioner-workman adduced his own evidence and deposed that he was not well treated by his employer and was humiliated because he. refused to obey the order of one year in the matter of not recovering dues of various parties which according to him was not his job. His evidence further shows that without even issuing a notice and holding an enquiry against him his services were abruptly terminated in terms of the letter stated hereinabove. It is important to note that first respondent-company adduced no evidence on their behalf in the Labour Court. On appreciation of the evidence adduced before him, the learned Labour Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner- workman failed to bring home the charge of unfair labour practice covered by Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act against the first respondent-company and accordingly by his judgment and order dated August 31, 1983 he dismissed the petitioner's unfair labour practice complaint.

(3.) BEING aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision application (ULP) No. 32 of 1983 in the industrial Court at Bombay. The learned member of the Industrial Court who heard the said revision application was not quite happy with the manner in which the learned Labour Judge disposed of the unfair labour practice complaint of the petitioner-workman. He pointed out the circumstances why he was unhappy the manner in which the learned Labour Judge disposed of the proceedings before him. What appears from the record is the fact that although the termination order was annexed to the complaint, the learned Labour Judge recorded that not even the letter of termination was annexed to the complaint which goes to show with what total non-application of mind the learned Labour Judge casually and in a cavalier fashion disposed of the unfair labour practice complaint filed by the petitioner-workman. And despite that fact, the learned Member of the Industrial Court was surprisingly of the view that the first respondent-company had not committed unfair labour practice covered by Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act although the learned Member of the Industrial Court was of the view that the action of the first respondent-company in terminating the services of the petitionerworkman was punitive and his services were terminated without a charge-sheet and without a domestic enquiry being held against him. The learned Member of the Industrial Court accordingly by his judgment and order dated August 6, 1984 dismissed the revision application of the petitioner-workman.