SANDVIK ASIS Vs. MARUTI MAHIPATI JAGADALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Respondent waives service. Heard forthwith. Writ Petition No. 4502 of 2001 is filed by the Petitioner Employer who hereinafter shall be referred to as the Employer to impugn the order dated 11.6.2001. By the said order, the Member, Industrial Court, Pune held that the complainant before it Maruti M. Jagadale had established that the company had indulged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act and directed the company to desist from the same. The Industrial Court held that the appointment of Respondent No.2 as an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry in respect of the two chargesheets served on the complainant was illegal and invalid. The complaint was numbered as Complaint No. 107 of 2001. Writ petition No. 5418 has been filed by Shri Maruti Jagadale who hereinafter will be referred to as "Workman" against the same order. The workman was aggrieved by the appointment of Shri V.G. Deshpande as Management Representative in the Enquiry and also holding of the enquiry at Chiplun, District Ratnagiri. Both objections have been negatived by the impugned order. As the order impugned is the same, both the petitions are being disposed of by this judgment and order.

(2.) Workman is employed with the Employer. It is the case of the Petitioners that certain acts of the workman amounted to misconduct within the meaning of the Standing Orders as certified and applicable to the Establishment of the Employer. The Employer's first issued chargesheet against workman on 20.12.2000. On account of the other alleged acts of misconduct, second chargesheet came to be issued on 30.12.2001. Pursuant to the chargesheet and in terms of the standing orders, domestic enquiry came to be initiated. The employer appointed Mr. M.P. Gokhale an Advocate, to act as Enquiry Officer to conduct the Enquiry. Mr. V.G. Deshpande, advocate was appointed as Management Representative. Workman was informed by the employer by notice of Enquiry dated 1.3.2001 that the Enquiry was scheduled to be held on 27.3.2001 to 10.00 a.m. at the security office of company at Chiplun Unit where the workman is working. The workman was informed that he will be allowed to be represented by a representative representation of his choice and that the said representative may be an office bearer of the union of which Workman was Member or a co-workman from his Department. Workman was also informed that he will be allowed to cross examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the Employer and will also be allowed to examine witnesses on his behalf. On 21.3.2001 Respondent sought time to engage his defence representative and Enquiry was adjourned to 5.4.2001. The workman made an application to the Enquiry Officer demanding that he be allowed to be represented by an advocate as his defence representative. This was granted. Another application came to be made on 5.4.2001 that Mr. Deshpande should not be allowed to act as Management representative to represent the Employer at the Enquiry.

(3.) Workman then filed a complaint before the second respondent under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The complaint was registered under (ULP) No. 107 of 2001. The grievances by the workman in the said complaint were principally that the Enquiry should be held at Pune Factory instead of Chiplun Factory where the first respondent is working and to pay to the workman expenses for travelling and stay at Pune as if workman was on duty and further that the Employer had no right to appoint Management Representative under Certified Standing Orders and lastly that it had no right to engage outsider as either Enquiry Officer or Management Representative. The second Respondent framed issues. The first issue was whether the Petitioner had committed the act of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act by appointing Respondent No. 2 outsider as an Enquiry Officer. The Second Respondent gave finding in the affirmative. The second issue was whether the petitioners had committed act of unfair labour practice by committing breach of standing orders in appointing Shri V.G. Deshmukh as Management Representative in Enquiry. This issue was answered in negative. The third issue was whether the workman proves that the employer indulged in an act of unfair labour practice by holding the enquiry at Chiplun District Ratnagiri. This was answered in the negative. The Petitioners and Respondents had filed joint pursis before the second Respondent that they do not want to lead oral evidence on the issue to be decided and had filed their respective documents. In view of the answer to the issues, specially finding on issue No. 1, second Respondent allowed the complaint and declared that the employer has engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act.