V R WALVEKAR Vs. GOPAL NARAYAN MARATHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 30-11-1999, passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application No. 18 of 1997, partly allowing the revision application and quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court on 19-2-1996 in Complaint no. 333 of 1987. By the said order dated 19-2-1996, the complaint filed by the respondent alleging that the petitioner-company was engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 1 (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter called as "the said Act", was dismissed by the Labour Court on account of failure on the part of the respondent to prove the allegations therein. By the impugned order, the industrial Court, while setting aside the said order, has held that the petitioners have committed unfair labour practices under Item l (g) of Schedule IV of the said Act and, therefore, directed the petitioners to appoint the complainant within three months from the date of passing of the order. The impugned order is sought to be challenged mainly on the ground that the same is totally in contravention of the powers of the revisional Court under section 44 of the said Act.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the Industrial Court while being fully conscious of the scope of revisional powers under section 44 of the said Act, had proceeded to consider whether the applicant in the revision application i. e. , the respondent herein, had been able to disclose the error apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant interference in the order passed by the Labour Court, however, thereto merely by referring to the list of reported decisions which had been relied upon by the Labour Court while dismissing the complaint, jumped to the conclusion that interference by the Industrial Court was necessary "as there are some vague allegations in the charge-sheet" and thereafter proceeded to re-appreciate the evidence by itself. However, in the process of appreciation of the evidence rather than considering the materials placed before the Labour Court in that regard, merely referred to the charge-sheet and holding that there is discrepancy between the English translation and the Marathi version of the charge-sheet, and held that the Labour Court ought to have applied its mind to the charge-sheet in English as well as in Marathi and has observed that the allegations of setting fire, as alleged in the Marathi version of the charge-sheet, without any evidence in support thereto, was baseless and without substance and that therefore on "humanity ground" if the employment is offered to the respondent afresh it would not cause irreparable loss to both the parties and therefore set aside the order of the Labour Court. Apparently, the Revisional Court has exercised its jurisdiction not only arbitrarily but in total breach of procedure. It is to be noted that before deciding to re-appreciate the evidence on record, it was necessary for the Revisional Court to ascertain whether the findings arrived at by the labour Court were either contrary to the materials on record or disclosed perversity. The Revisional Court has not done any such exercise in the matter in hand. Merely by referring to the charge-sheet and comparing the marathi version thereof with the English translation of the same, has jumped to the conclusion that the same justifies interference by the revisional authority in the order passed by the Labour Court. The records apparently disclose that the charge-sheet furnished to the workman in english did not disclose the allegation of any incident of setting of fire to the property. Undisputedly, the reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the workman in the English language. There was no grievance of any prejudice having been caused to the workman on account of the alleged discrepancy in the charge-sheet in the English language as compared to its Marathi version. Being so, unless the respondent in the revision application had disclosed either perversity in the findings arrived at by the labour Court or the same being contrary to the materials on record, which could have justified interference in the order of the Labour Court, there was no justification for the Industrial Court to set aside the order passed by the Labour Court which apparently disclosed detailed analysis of the materials on record and proper application of mind after taking into consideration the various decisions relevant to the point in issue. Being so, it is apparent that the revisional authority has exceeded its jurisdiction while dealing with the matter under section 44 of the said Act and that itself justifies interference by this Court in the impugned order and to set aside the same.