MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED Vs. SUNIL YESHWANT PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 was employed as a fitter in the Nasik factory of the petitioner from 1-9-1983. It appears that on 26-7-1985, when respondent No. 1 was leaving the factory premises on his scooter, the security supervisor on taking search of his scooter found Shank Drill Bits of different diameters under the scooter mat. Respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted for the offence of theft on 28-7-1985. An enquiry was instituted against him wherein evidence of the security supervisor and the administrative officer of the company was led on behalf of the petitioner and evidence of one Mr. Woodman was recorded on behalf of respondent No. 1. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 was guilty of misconduct and that the charges levelled against him had been proved by the petitioner. The petitioner dismissed respondent No. 1 from service on 31-1-1986.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this, respondent No. 1 approached the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nasik under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and a reference was made for adjudication of the dispute before the Labour Court. Proceedings were filed before the Labour Court. In its written statement, the petitioner had sought permission to lead evidence in the event the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry held against respondent No. 1 was not fair and proper.

(3.) THE Labour Court framed two issues, namely, (i) Whether the domestic enquiry held against the workman Shri Sunil Yashvant Pandit is fair, proper and legal; (ii) Does the employer prove misconduct alleged against the workman if the domestic enquiry is vitiated for any reason. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry against the workman was fair, proper and legal and, therefore, the second issue did not survive.