DALAL ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. RAMRAO BHAURAO SAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition impugns the order of the First Labour Court Thane, dated 23rd September, 1987 and 30th May, 1988, as confirmed by the Industrial Court in the revision by the Industrial Courts order dated 7th April, 1989. The proceedings in the two courts below were under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) THE petitioner is a private limited company, which carries on business as structural engineers and fabricators of industrial engineering equipment. For this purpose, they are required to get steel and other raw-material from their customers and carry out fabrication thereof within their factory. The first respondent is an employee of the petitioner working as a Fitter. One workman, by name T. B. Patel, was dismissed by the petitioner on 25th September, 1986, after he was found guilty of certain misconduct proved against him at a duly held domestic enquiry. It appears that the dismissal of this workman, Patel become a prestige issue with the first respondent and certain other workmen who instigated a stay in strike for reinstatement of the said Patel. After carrying on the stay-in strike till about 1986, respondent No. 1 and other workmen resorted to picketing and obstruction of movement of men and material. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, Thane and obtained an ad interim order of injunction on 26th November, 1986, restraining the Association of Engineering Workers, the trade union representing the workmen and several other workmen, from, inter alia, obstructing deliver of goods or movement of material and receipt of material. It appears that, at about the same time, without the petitioner being aware of it, the union had also filed a Complaint (ULP) No. 462 of 1986, and obtained an ex parte order of injunction therein. The workmen took up the stand that the order of injunction restrained the petitioner employer from moving men and material in and out of its factory and it had virtually the effect of annulling the earlier order of injunction granted on 26th November, 1986 in the petitioners complaint. The Industrial Court was moved by an application by the petitioner and the Industrial Court, by an order dated 27th November, 1986, clarified that its earlier order made in Complaint (ULP) No. 460 of 1986 was not nullified by the order made in the unions Complaint (ULP) No. 364 of 1986. The Industrial Court also explained therein that the cumulative effect of the two orders was that the petitioner could remove finished and also semi-finished goods and raw material for job work as per existing practice and the workers should not obstruct the same until further orders. Despite this clarification given by the Industrial Court, the workmen, led by respondent No. 1 and others, continued to obstruct the movement of men and material to and from the factory. A charge-sheet dated 1st December, 1986, was served on the first respondent alleging specific charges in connection with such obstruction and other misconduct which took place on 29th November, 1986. Surprisingly, the first respondent in his explanation dated 5th December, 1986, took up the stand that the petitioners taking away of material, machinery parts, raw-material etc. from the factory premises, was a violation of the order of injunction granted by the Industrial Court and that the interpretation thereof, as clarified by the Court, was not acceptable to the workmen. In the circumstances, the first respondent justified the Act alleged against him and denied that he was guilty of any misconduct.

(3.) DURING the period January to April, 1987, an enquiry was held into the charge-sheet given to the first respondent. The first respondent attended the enquiry. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that, apart from the first respondent, certain other workmen were also charge-sheeted, and the enquiry was commenced against them also. They had also participated in the enquiry during the above period. On 16th April, 1987, all the charge-sheeted workmen, who were present for the enquiry, walked out and refused to participate in the enquiry. From 19th April, 1987, the workmen, led by respondent No. 1 and others, intensified their acts of interfering with the work of the factory by gherao of the packing contractor and his workers, which resulted in the police having to be called to clear them. Surprisingly, though the workmen had categorically refused to work claiming to be on strike, the petitioner employer had permitted the striking workmen to enter the premises of the factory every day, though they were not carrying out any work. Better sense prevailed thereafter, and the employer put up a notice on 20th April, 1987, informing the workmen that they would be permitted to enter the factory only if they were willing to work. On 21st April, 1987, a second charge-sheet was given to the first respondent in respect of certain further misconduct alleged to have been committed by him. Since, by this time, the striking workmen, including the first respondent, were not allowed to enter the factory premises and as they has refused to participate in the ongoing enquiry, they were called upon by a newspaper advertisement to attend the enquiry. During the month of May, and up to 10th June, 1987, the workmen attended the enquiry in connection with the first charge-sheet. On 10th June, 1987, the enquiry in connection with the second charge-sheet dated 21st April, 1987, was scheduled. The workmen attended this enquiry also up to about 26th June, 1987, on different dates. On 27th June, 1987, when the enquiry into the second charge sheet was scheduled, the first respondent, once again staged a walk-out and refused to participate therein. In July and August, 1987, enquiries into both the charge-sheets were held and completed ex parte, as the charge-sheeted workmen, including the first respondent, had refused to participate in the enquiry. It appears that, by an order made on 27th May, 1987, under section 25 of the Act, the Second Labour Court had declared the strike of the workmen as illegal. Some time in July, 1987, some of the workmen gave individual undertakings of carrying on normal and peaceful work, and indicated that they had withdrawn their strike. All workmen, barring the workmen against whom disciplinary enquiries were pending, were permitted to resume work. Respondent No. 1 and the other workmen, against whom disciplinary enquiries were pending, were suspended pending the enquiry.