VINAYAK BHAGWAN SHETYE Vs. KISMET PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was in the employment of respondent No. 1 company as a watchman. He was charged with misconduct on the ground that at about 12.40 a.m. on 6th July, 1976, while he was working in the third shift, he along with another security guard assaulted a canteen boy after having come near the gate of Parle Beverages Private Limited factory. This misconduct, according to the employer, would fall under the Standing Orders which refer to "drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the establishment" and "commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment". On the ground that as a result of the enquiry the misconduct was proved, the enquiry the misconduct was proved, the petitioner was dismissed on 30th November, 1976. The Union raised an industrial dispute arising out of this dismissal of the employee and another watchman and this dispute was referred to the Labour Court. One of the grounds on which the dismissal was challenged was that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. Allegation of victimization was also made. The employer had contended before the Labour Court that the enquiry was properly held and there was no victimization.

(2.) The Labour Court held that enquiry was vitiated because the Enquiry Officer had declined to adjourn the enquiry as the representative of the employees was not present. It may be stated that the enquiry had proceeded ex parte after the request for adjournment made by the employees was rejected and the employees declined to take part in the enquiry.

(3.) Having held that the enquiry was vitiated the Labour Court gave and opportunity to the employer to prove the misconduct by adducing evidence before the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that no evidence was adduced before it to prove the misconduct and that the only witness Mr. Daruwala, who was examined, did not have any personal knowledge about the misconduct. The Labour Court, therefore, recorded a finding that the charges of misconduct had not been proved against the watchman. He preferred this finding by using the word 'technically'. Obviously the use was intended to indicate that there is no evidence to prove the misconduct.