SUBHASH BALKRISHNA PHADKE Vs. KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINEERS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16th Dec., 1992 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune in Revision Application No.16 of 1992 and Revision Application No. 30 of 1992 filed by both the parties as both the parties were aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Labour Court in Complaint ULP No. 103 of 1989 filed by the petitioner against the respondent company under section 28 read with section 30 and Items 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 to challenge the order of dismissal dated 4th May, 1989 passed by the respondent company.

(2.) The undisputed facts can be narrated as below:

(3.) The petitioner was aggrieved by the order of dismissal and, therefore he filed the complaint of unfair labour practice as stated hereinabove, before the Labour Court. The respondent company contested the complaint and justified the action of dismissal on the basis of the proved misconduct against the petitioner and denied the allegations of unfair labour practice and victimisation. According to the respondents, a fair and proper enquiry was held before the petitioner was punished and the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing in the enquiry and that there was no violation of any principles of natural justice during the course of the enquiry. The respondents further justified its action of dismissal of the petitioner on the grournri that the enquiry officer had submitted his report on the basis of the evidence on record to prove the misconduct levelled against the petitioner.