S M RENU Vs. PROPRIETOR MAHAJAN SILK MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-employee was in the permanent employment of the 1st respondent-ex-employer as a Jobber for a period of about two years. On May 11, 1978, he was served with a show-cause notice on the allegations that he had refused to carry out the instructions for attending the looms of the sister concern of M/s. Mahajan Silk Mills (Respondent No. 1.) He was suspended pending enquiry and thereafter on consideration of his written explanation a domestic enquiry was conducted as a result of which he was dismissed from service by an order dated June 19, 1978. The petitioner thereafter approached the 1st respondent under Section 42 (4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 requesting the 1st respondent to reinstate him with full back wages and continuity of service. Since the demand was not acceded to, he filed an application under Sections 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial relations Act, 1946 in the Labour Court at Thane for the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. On appreciation of the evidence adduced before him, the learned Labour Judge, by his judgment and order dated October 30, 1984 held that the punishment of dismissal inflicted on the petitioner was extreme and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and it smacked of ulterior motive and as such the dismissal order could not be sustained. However, the learned Labour Judge did not grant to the petitioner the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service but directed the 1st respondent to pay full wages as compensation to the petitioner.

(2.) BEING aggrieved, the petitioner filed Appeal (IC) No. 93 of 1984 in the Industrial Court at bombay for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service and the 1st respondent filed Appeal (IC) No. 5 of 1985 in the Industrial Court at Bombay praying that the relief of compensation granted to the petitioner be quashed and set aside. The Industrial Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and allowed that of the 1st respondent by its Judgment dated January 24, 1986. The petitioner, therefore invoked the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court under article 227 of the Constitution by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) NOW, according to the 1st respondent, on May 11, 1978 the petitioner was asked by the weaving Master to attend to looms Nos. 5 and 10 of a sister concern by name Tarun Textiles but the petitioner refused to do so and arrogantly stated that he would not repair the looms of Tarun textiles or of any other unit although he was doing this work continuously during his employment with the 1st respondent, Therefore, he was charge-sheeted for wilful insubordination and disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of his superior or committing an act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment and thereafter a proper and valid domestic enquiry was held against him in which he was found guilty of the charges levelled and pursuant to the report to the Enquiry Officer, he was dismissed from service by an order dated June 19, 1978. The contention of the petitioner was that his employer was the 1 st respondent, i. e. Mahajan Silk Mills, and M/s. Tarun Textiles was entirely a separate legal entity for which he was not bound to do any work but at the request of the 1st respondent he was also attending to the work of two sister concerns of the 1st respondent by name Tarun Textiles and United Textiles as no Jobber was employed there but he was doing such work on an assurance by the 1st respondent that for this work he would be paid, but was not paid anything and on the contrary was treated very shabbily and was not even granted leave wages and was not provided with any assistance in the nature of a helper or a carpenter, etc. He was, therefore, justified in refusing to attend to the work of the sister concerns of the 1st respondent and in doing so he did not commit any misconduct whatsoever, much less the charges levelled against him.