MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD Vs. S A PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY judgment and order, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, on June 10, 1985, in Application IT no. 113 of 1983 under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in Reference IT No. 95 of 1978, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of approval of the company's action of dismissal of the second respondent workman is refused. The said order is impugned in the present petition.

(2.) THE incident, which has given rise to the present proceeding, took place on July 30, 1982. The second respondent, at the material time, was working as Machine Operator 'c' in Engine Shop of the petitioner's establishment. On July 30, 1982 at about 5. 45 p. m. while a worker of the establishment Shri S. J. Tarlekar was waiting on Plat Form No. 2 of Kandivli Railway Station for boarding a Suburban Train, the second respondent alongwith one other worker Shri R. S. Kesarkar, accosted Tarlekar, caught him by his shirt and hit him on his forehead, slapped him on his face and threatened him of dire consequences. Later, the second respondent as also his companion Kesarkar boarded a compartment of a train in which another worker AB. Gujar was commuting. Respondent No. 2 accosted Gujar caught him by his shirt, banged his head on the door of the compartment and hit him with fist blows. While doing so respondent No. 2 asked gujar as to how much money the latter had received out of Rs. 60,00,000/- paid by the company to the Union for agreeing to shift the engine assembly to Igatpuri. Gujar attempted to get down at malad where he stays and thereafter at Goregaon station, but the second respondent and kesarkar blocked his way and obstructed him from getting down. The second respondent continued to assault Gujar till the latter with great difficulty managed to alight at the Jogeshwari railway Station. While Gujar was alighting, the second respondent threatened him that they would see the others who got a share of Rs. 60,00,000/- and those of the Company's Officers who are involved in the matter. Respondent No. 2 threatened Gujar that the second respondent and Kesarkar will go to his house and teach him a lesson and threatened him of dire consequences if Gujar did not resign from the Works Committee.

(3.) THE above incident led to disciplinary proceedings being initiated against respondent No. 2. On August 2, 1982 a chargesheet was served upon the second respondent. By the chargesheet, the second respondent was charged with having committed misconduct as defined under the companies Certified Standing Order 24. Disciplinary proceedings commenced on August 20, 1982 and concluded on June 30, 1983. On July 29, 1983, the Inquiry Officer gave his findings. He found that the second respondent had acted in a disorderly manner by adopting indecent behaviour and had committed acts subversive of discipline and good behaviour inasmuch as he manhandled and slapped co-workers S. T. Tarlekar and A. B. Gujar. He found that, though the incident in question had taken place outside the premises and precincts of the Company, it had resulted in subversion of discipline and good behaviour within the premises or precincts of the company. Consequent upon the said findings, the second respondent, by an order passed on september 23, 1983, was dismissed from service.