VIJAYKUMAR LAXMAN KABIR Vs. N R C LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) IN this proceeding under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the correctness of an order dated 26th July, 2002 of the Industrial Court at thane is called in question. By its order, the Industrial Court dismissed a complaint filed by the petitioner under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour practices Act, 1971 ("m. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971" ).

(3.) THE petitioner was employed by the first respondent on 1/03/1974. The petitioner initially worked as a Junior Clerk and was thereafter promoted as a Department Assistant. On 8/11/1986 as chargesheet was issued to the petitioner. The substance of the charge against the petitioner was that in certain proceedings which were pending before the industrial Court in a complaint filed by N. R. C. Employees Union, the company had filed an application dated 8/10/1996. On 14th october, 1996, it was alleged, the petitioner filed a reply to the application of the Company and annexed thereto a tenancy agreement in respect of certain office premises of the Company. According to the first respondent, this item was taken from the agenda of a particular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company held on 9/09/1996. The petitioner was charged of the misconduct of having clandestinely obtained and removed a copy of the agenda of the Board meeting which was thereafter handed over to the Advocate for the Union. The petitioner was charged with theft, fraud and dishonesty in connection with the employer's business and property, disclosing to an unauthorised person information in regard to the processes of the establishment and of the commission of an act subversive of discipline. The petitioner submitted his reply on 16/11/1996. A disciplinary inquiry was convened by the employer and on 25/02/1997 the Inquiry Officer submitted his report. A letter was addressed to the petitioner on 25/02/1997 enclosing a copy of the report of the inquiry Officer to which the petitioner submitted a reply dated 5/03/1997.