MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED Vs. VIJAY DAMODAR MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner company is aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court passed on 7-9-1995 in Reference (IDA) No. 493 of 1992 holding that the resignation tendered by the workman was under force and coercion and that the company had followed some unfair labour practice against him. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court directed the petitioner company to reinstate the workman with continuity of service w. e. f. 27-9-1991 without backwages.

(2.) THE respondent workman was in the employment of the petitioner company from 31-10-1966. Since then, he also appears to have been promoted in the service from the post of Mazdoor to the post of Auto Mechanic. According to the workman his past service record was clean. It was the case of the workman that on 27-9-1991 the company had obtained resignation from him forcibly and under coercion. According to him, he did not resign voluntarily from the employment of the company. The respondent-workman therefore raised an industrial dispute demanding reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. The State Government referred the Industrial Dispute under section 10 (1) read with section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court for adjudication. Both the parties completed their pleadings. According to the petitioner-company, the respondent workman had tendered his resignation voluntarily without any force or coercion, as alleged to avoid any police action against him in view of the incident occurred on 26-9-1991. According to the company, on that day the respondent workman had committed theft of two copper hammer heads weighing 1. 64 kgs. and he was caught red-handed trying to take away the said property of the company unlawfully. According to the company, the respondent-workman had confessed the said incident in writing and had given his resignation voluntarily. The petitioner company opposed grant of any relief to the respondent workman in the aforesaid circumstances. The respondent workman examined himself while the petitioner company examined five witnesses. The petitioner company also relied on the following documents :

(3.) THE learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court framed the issues on the basis of the pleadings and answered the same against the petitioner company by holding that the workman had proved that under the fear to face the police action for the alleged theft of copper hammer worth Rs. 150/- Rs. 200/- he had submitted his resignation and that it was not under his freewill and without pressure. The Labour Court, however, held that the workman had failed to prove any mala fide intention of the petitioner company. The Labour Court held that the workman had proved unfair labour practice on the part of the company and therefore, he was entitled to the relief of reinstatement without backwages. While answering the said issues the Labour Court has considered the entire evidence on record. The Labour Court has granted the relief of reinstatement mainly on the ground that he had clean past record and he had put in long service. It further appears that the value of the property to the tune of Rs. 150/- to Rs. 200/- had also weighed with the learned Judge. While granting reinstatement he has undermined the incident of theft by calling it a "minor guilt" while denying full backwages he has described the said incident as "serious" which did not warrant premium of backwages to be granted to the workman. The leaned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has observed that the company should accept the workman by showing mercy as he was punished by way of denying full backwages.