AMAR DYE CHEM LIMITED Vs. M R BHOPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners Amar Dye-Chem Limited, have challenged the award dated 9th February, 1989 of the First Labour Court, Bombay in a referennce under section 10 (1) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Dispute Act in respect of the concerned workmen. By the said award the Industrial Court decided against the petitioners the preliminary issue whether the enquiry was fair and proper against the petitioner and held that it was not fair and proper.

(2.) THE facts of this case, briefly stated, are as follows : sometime in October-November, 1981, there was serious labour trouble at the factory of the petitioners at Shahad leading to lockout of the above factory and suspension of all manufacturing activities. Immediately after the issue of lock-out notice dated 5-11-1981 in respect of the above factory, on 8-11-1981 there was a flash strike by the workers at the head quarter of the petitioners, which was later declared illegal by the Labour Court. A number of incidents took place at that time. According to the management 17 workers were involved in severe assault of the purchase officer leading to the grievious injuries to him. In such a situation on 13-12-1981, the management issued charge-sheets against 17 workmen (including Respondent No. 1 herein) for alleged commission of grave misconduct. By consent of the management and the workmen, a joint enquiry was held into the charges against all the 17 workmen. Initially the charge-sheeted workmen nominated Mr. Yagnik, who was also one of the charge-sheeted workmen, as their representative to conduct the proceedings. The modalities of enquiry were also settled between the parties. It was agreed that the proceedings would be in Hindi or Marathi but could be recorded in English. It was also agreed that the day-to-day record of the enquiry could be handed over to the charge-sheeted persons or the defence Counsel or their representatives. Later, however, by consent of the parties, the two sets of enquiries were merged into one. The inquiry was held on different dates between 2nd February to 5th July, 1982. A number of witnesses were examined by the management in support of the charges, who were cross-examined not only by the charge-sheeted workmens representative but also by many of the charge-sheeted workmen themselves. Out of the 17 charge-sheeted workmen, 15 deposed in their own defence as well as in defence of their co-charge-sheeted workmen. Mr. Yagnik, who was conducting the enquiry as representative of the charge-sheeted workmen, also examined himself as a witness. All those workmen were also cross-examined. On 28-6-1982, after concluding the evidence of the 15 charge-sheeted workmen, a prayer was made on behalf of charge-sheeted workmen for an adjournment to enable them to produce some further witnesses. Though the Enquiry Officer felt that it was the duty of the charge-sheeted workmen to remain present if they wanted to do so, he adjourned the case till 30th June, 1982. While doing so, he made the following observations :

(3.) A demand was made by the workmen for reinstatement in service. Ultimately the demand was referred by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Bombay to the Labour Court under sections 10 (1) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. One of the grounds of challenge to the order of dismissal on behalf of the dismissed workmen was that the enquiry was not fair and proper as they were denied sufficient opportunity to defend themselves. This controversy was decided as a preliminary issue by the First Labour Court, Bombay, who by its award dated 9-2-1989, held that the enquiry was not fair and proper. This was done mainly on three grounds. First, that the list of witnesses was not furnished to the charge-sheeted workmen. Second, day-to-day proceedings were given to the representative of the workmen and not to each individual workmen. Third, no reason was given by the Enquiry Officer as to why on 5th July, 1982 on being informed that the workmen representative would come at 2. 00 p. m, it was not possible for him to wait till 2. 00 p. m. The Labour Court held that the refusal to adjourn the enquiry amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. The employer has challenged the above award of the First Labour Court.