SANJIV KUMAR MAHAPATRA Vs. A L ALASPURKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINALLY the petition was filed by the petitioner who was alive at that time. He was aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29-7-1997 passed by the Industrial Court in the Revision Application No. 5/96 and 24/96 filed by both the parties i. e. the petitioner driver and the respondent company, the employer, against the order of the Labour Court dated 22-12-1995 in the Complaint U. L. P. No. 133/89 filed by the petitioner against the respondent-company challenging the order of termination dated 7-4-1989. The petitioner had filed the said complaint under section 28 read with section 30 and Items 1 (a), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971. The Labour Court had granted reinstatement with 50% of backwages. Both the parties were not satisfied with the said judgment and, therefore, they preferred revision application as aforesaid under section 44 of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971.

(2.) THE facts in the present case are in a very narrow compass. The petitioner was employed by the respondent company as a driver by letter of appointment dated 21-2-1986. He was required to drive the official car of the company provided to its Director (Technical ). It appears that he was also attached with the family of the said Director and was also required to do the domestic duties as and when required by the family members. It appears that the relationship between the Director and his family vis a vis the petitioner driver were cordial barring the last incident which became the cause for his termination from employment. Though the petitioner has averred another small incident at the house of the Director with Directors wife there is no material or evidence on record to prove or disprove the said incident. The main cause of termination appears to be that while collecting his wages from Shri Gautam Dutta, the Accountant of the Company, the petitioner uttered the following words: "agar SAB KO GAREB KO SATANAKA HAI TO MUGE TIME NAHE LAGEGA BADLA LENA KO DO MINUTE LAGTA HAI GADI KO SIDE MAR KE MIA BIVI KO UDANE KO AAP KO JO ACCHA LAGTA HAI KARO". It appears that he was not in a normal mood but was in a temperament of taking some kind of revenge against the Director himself and his family members. It further appears that the Accountant Gautam Dutta informed Shri Guha what actually had transpired. It further appears that Shri Guha told Shri Gautam Dutta that he would think over the matter and take decision, it further appears that after giving serious thought to the incident the services of the petitioner were terminated by order dated 5-4-1989 in terms of the letter of appointment and also in terms of the standing orders governing the employment of the petitioner, who was offered one months wages in lieu of notice and he was also advised to collect from the Accounts Department his legal dues. The tenor of the termination letter was discharge simplicitor and not punitive. Though however it was mentioned in the termination letter that he was terminated with immediate effect from the reasons recorded separately. It appears that by a letter dated 12-4-1989 the petitioner protested against the said order of termination. He also requested the company to furnish the reasons separately recorded by the company. In reply to the said letter the respondent company sent a letter dated 17-4-1989 giving the break-up of the dues as requested by the petitioner and also a copy of the reasons which was separately recorded by the company was forwarded. In the statement of reasons for termination of the petitioner the incident offer the demand of an increment was mentioned and it was also recorded that the language or the words which he had used to Shri Gautam Dutta in respect of Mr. and Mrs. Guha, the Director and his wife. On receipt of the said letter the petitioner again replied by letter dated 19-4-1989 denying the contents of the statement of the reasons and protested that the entire story was manipulated and concocted and that it was an afterthought and repeated and reiterated the statements made by him in his letter dated 4-4-1989. Since the respondent company did not withdraw the order of termination and did not accede to the request of the petitioner, the complaint of unfair labour practice was filed by him before the Labour Court challenging the order of termination as an unfair labour practice as aforesaid and demanding reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. According to him, it was an act of victimisation and mala fide exercise of employers powers. He had also alleged undue haste in taking the decision of termination as the company had not issued any charge-sheet and had not held a domestic enquiry before passing the aforesaid order of termination which according to the petitioner was a punitive order for the alleged act of misconduct. The petitioner alleged that it was an illegal order of dismissal for the alleged act of misconduct without holding a domestic enquiry and in violation of the principles of natural justice. He reiterated that it was not an order of simple discharge as alleged by the respondent company.

(3.) THE respondent company contested the complaint by filing its reinstatement denying the charge of unfair labour practice and justifying its action of discharge simplicitor being legal and proper under the terms of the appointment order and also under the standing orders applicable to the establishment including the petitioner as its employee. It appears from the record that the respondent company stepped in the witness box first to lead the evidence in order to justify the action taken against the petitioner. The respondent company examined Shri Gautam Dutta, Accountant to whom the petitioner had uttered the threatening language against the Director and his wife of the respondent company. Shri Dutta repeated the language used by the petitioner. Shri Dutta sworn on oath that the petitioner had uttered that "if the Director was harassing the poor employee like petitioner in that case it will not take any time for him to take revenge and that it will take only two minutes to dash the car by a side and both husband and wife can be killed. " He further added that let them do whatever they like to do. Shri Dutta stated that after uttering that language he had walked away. He has also sworn on oath what transpired between himself and the Director to whom he had conveyed what had happened in his cabin where the petitioner had used the said threatening language. Shri Dutta was thoroughly cross-examined. From the cross-examination running into more than 16 pages it appears that the said witness withstood the exhaustive and searching cross-examination and nothing more appears to have elicitated in favour of the petitioner. It appears that the respondent company examined the said witness to justify its action of simply discharge to prove the reasons which were separately recorded and which were communicated to the petitioner on his demand. Thereafter the petitioner adduced his evidence in rebuttal. He was also cross-examined at length. The learned Judge has noted the demeanor of the petitioner to the effect that he was not answering properly inspite of repeated instructions given to him. It appears that after termination from the employment of the respondent company the petitioner was driving a taxi and he got a batch for driving taxi. He however denied that he was earning a sum of Rs. 5000/- p. m. by driving the taxi. He ended his answer by saying that he used to get the work once or twice in a week and sometimes he got nothing.