RAGHUNATH KISAN KALE Vs. M S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18th January, 1994 passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik in Complaint U. L. P. No. 874 of 1989 filed by him against the respondents under section 28 read with Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971, challenging the order of punishment imposed on him by way of withholding of increments for two years on permanent basis. According to the petitioner the charges levelled against him were false and fabricated. He also alleged that the enquiry was not fair and proper and the aforesaid punishment, therefore, as illegal and improper and amounted to unfair labour practice.

(2.) THE respondents appeared before the Industrial Court and contested the complaint by filing their written statement. It was contended by them that the petitioner was committing acts of misconduct and he was not doing his work properly and that there were several complaints from the villagers and the officers had to face angry villagers for want of electricity at the proper given time. It was further alleged by the respondents that the petitioner was using very abusive and arrogent language and was threatening his superiors and was refusing to perform his lawful duties and was not obeying the lawful and reasonable orders of the superiors. It was further contended that the petitioner was punished after following the prescribed procedure under the rules and by observing the principles of natural justice. According to the respondents, there was no unfair labour practice in the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner. It was the case of the respondents that they have strictly followed the rules and regulations in imposing the aforesaid punishment and, therefore, there is no failure to implement any Award, agreement or settlement to attract any item of unfair labour practice as alleged.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings, the learned Member of the Industrial Court framed five issues and on the basis of the evidence and material on record answered the same against the petitioner. The Industrial Court has held that there was no unfair labour practice engaged in by the respondents while imposing aforesaid punishment. I have heard Shri Shidore the learned Advocate for the petitioner. According to him, the action of the respondents was not bona fide and that it smacked of vindictive attitude and amounted to victimisation. Shri Shidore, pointed out certain prima facie observations made by the Industrial Court in the interim order. Shri Shidore further submitted that the respondents had violated the principles of natural justice. Shri Shidore gave whole emphasis on the mala fides of the officers of the respondents. Ms. Baxi on the other hand supported the judgment of the Industrial Court and pointed out that there was absolutely no case of mala fides made out by the petitioner. She further submitted that the petitioner was punished in accordance with the rules and regulations after holding a fair and proper inquiry wherein, the petitioner had taken part and he was given full opportunity of defending himself. The learned Advocates further submitted that instead of imposing a harsher punishment of reversion, as recommended by the disciplinary authority, the respondents had taken a very lenient view and imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments. She pointed out that the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice as to why a harsh punishment of reversion should not be imposed on him. Ms. Baxi further submitted that though the petitioner deserved a harsh punishment of reversion, lenient and sympathetic view was taken and a mild punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect as imposed on him and his position was protected. She further submitted that the learned Member of the Industrial Court has considered all the aspects of the matter including the allegations made against the petitioner and that the fact that the enquiry was held to be fair and proper and, therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was warranted by this Court.