SINDHU EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. KACHARU JAIRAM KHOBRAGADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition challenging two orders-one by the Labour Court and the other by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, directing the reinstatement of respondent No. 2 into the school run by the petitioner-society.

(2.) SHORTLY stated the facts are as under :---The petitioner is a Society and runs a school in an area known as Jaripatka. This is a co-educational school where 40% of the students are girl-students. There are also the lady-teachers in the school. The school has earned a name in the educational circle, inasmuch as invariably every year the students of this school find their names in the merit-list. There has also been an example where the girl-students of this school have topped in the Board Examinations in whole State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 1 was working with this school as a watchman, having joined his service on 1-8-1978. It was his duty to attend the school and also keep a watch at night on the school building so that it remains safe. While working as such, a letter came to be received by the Principal of the school, who is also petitioner No. 2 to this petition. The letter stated that nefarious activities were going on in the school, like prostitution and gambling etc. In fact, there were about two or three letters which the said Principal received. Some were anonymous, some were sent purportedly by the social organisation and some by individual persons. The reputation of the school was, thus, at stake because of what was going on in the school at night-time. The Principal as also the Managing Committee felt apprehensive about this, and it is also a plea of the employer that the Principal once visited the school at night only to find some unsocial elements fleeing from the spot. All the activities obviously could not have been done unless respondent No. 1, who was a watchman, was a party to same, or at least, without his connivance. It is also a case pleaded by the employer/society that when the Principal visited the respondent/chowkidar was present and he fell on the feet of the Principal begging his pardon and assured him that such events would not be repeated. All this took place in the month of December, 1981. The Managing Committee of the school took a very serious note of these letters which were sent by the organisation called Karanti Dal as also by the individuals, and decided to send a show-cause-notice to the respondent/employee. They contemplated an action under Rule 28 (2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which permitted them to dismiss the employee without holding any Departmental Enquiry. They, on the basis of that power, dispensed with the enquiry, as holding of the enquiry would have invited undesirable social consequences, and holding that the explanation of the respondent/employee was not satisfactory, they proceeded to dismiss him. However, nothing was stated in the dismissal order. The order of dismissal came to be challenged by the respondent/employee by way of a complaint under the provisions of section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU and PULP Act ). It was alleged by the employee in his complaint that unfair labour practices were committed by the school management. His contention was that though he was in continuous employment and had become permanent, he could not have been dismissed without holding any Departmental Enquiry. His further contention was that, though he was not expected to work both at day and night, he was asked to so work and his working hours exceeded fifty hours per week. He further contended that he had approached Praja Sattak Shikshan Sanstha, Maharashtra Rajya, Nagpur, complaining about the illegal heavy work-load given to him, which irked the management. He also contended that the misconduct alleged in the letter dated 11-2-1981 was nothing but an eye-wash and that his dismissal bristled against the principles of natural justice. It is amply seen that he has made a specific grievance that Principal Bajaj had asked him to work at his (Principals) place as a domestic servant, and on his refusal, the Principal had taken such adverse stand against him, which was false. In short, the respondent No. 1 / employee complained of the unfair labour practices on the part of the petitioners, under Clauses (a) (b) (d) (f) and (g) of Item 1 of Schedule IV to the MRTU and PULP Act. It will not be out of place here to mention that the management, with the dismissal order, had sent a cheque for Rs. 2736. 90 which amount was equal to six months salary, in keeping with the dictates of Rule 28 (2) of the Rules. The respondent No. 1 employee claimed in the complaint that he had accepted this cheque, deposited the same in the Bank, but only under protest.

(3.) THIS lengthy complaint was opposed by the petitioners by a written-statement, probably equally lengthy where the petitioners claimed that theirs was a institution of linguistic minority and had the constitutional protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. It is further claimed that it was not an industry and the complainant/respondent No. 1 was not a workman. Regarding the merits, it was claimed that the complainant was not a peon but a watchman and he had the duty to guard the school premises only from 10. 00 p. m. to 6. 00 a. m. and was not required to work during the day time at all. It was stoutly denied that the employee was ever asked to do any other work besides his duties as a watchman, domestic or otherwise. The society claimed that the management was aware of the rumours that the watchman allowed anti-social elements during the night time to assemble in the school for gambling purposes. He also allowed certain unsocial and bad elements to bring girls in the school for immoral purposes. They also disclosed that they had received complaints in the form of letters and that the Principal had himself paid visit to the school premises at night hours only to find the rumours to be true. According to the management, all these things were going on in the school for months together, but when the management started receiving complaints in writing and when the Principal himself was convinced because of his own visit, the management acted further. The management specifically pleaded that if a domestic enquiry had been held in this matter, it would have amounted to inviting undesirable social consequences. The management further pleaded that firstly it would have brought a blot on the reputation of the school and it would not have been in the interest of the institution to call the witnesses, like the girls who were brought in the school at night time, for it would have affected the school in every possible manner. They claimed, therefore, that this was a fit case which could be covered in the four-corners of Rule 22 of the Rules and, therefore, they took an action. They claimed that they made a confidential enquiry inviting the reasons by giving an opportunity to the respondent No. 1-employee to explain and when they found that the explanation was not satisfactory, they acted under the rule by giving six months salary to the respondent No. 1-employee and by ordering his dismissal.