SADHNA TEXTILE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. GULABCHAND GAYADIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of writ petitions is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-5-1989 of the Industrial Court, Bombay on appeals under section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 ("the Act" ). First 12 petitions have been filed by the employer individually against each of the workmen who were parties to the proceeding before the Industrial Court and one writ petition viz. Writ Petition No. 868 of 1990 has been filed jointly by all the 12 workmen.

(2.) AS the facts and issues involved are common and the controversy arises out of the common order of the Industrial Court, all these writ petitions were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The facts giving rise to these petitions, briefly, stated, are as follows : sadhana Textile Mills Private Limited, the petitioner in the first 12 writ petitions, is the employer. The principal respondents in all these above petitions are the workmen. Sadhana Textile Mills Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the employer") charge-sheeted its 12 workmen, under Standing Orders 20 (b), 20 (l), 20 (r) and 20 (k) for committing various misconducts. It was alleged that the workmen were on illegal strike from 23-11-1984 to 26-11-1984. It was further alleged that they not only took part in the illegal strike but also abated and instigated other workmen to take part in the same. Such action on the part of the workmen, according to the employer, was sub-versive of the discipline or good behaviour. It was further alleged that these workmen held a meeting inside the premises of the mill without the previous permission of the Manager; gheraod the Chief Manager (Works) and other officers in the office; threatened them with dire consequences and prohibited the officers of the company from going out of the mill premises etc. An enquiry was conducted on these charges. Various witnesses were examined. On consideration of the deposition of the witnesses and other material on record, all the workmen were found guilty of misconduct. On the basis of the finding of the Enquiry Officer, they were discharged from service by the employer by order dated 15-2-1986. The order of discharge was challenged by the workmen by filing applications under section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 ("the Act") before the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, a preliminary issue was raised by the workmen that the enquiry was not fair and proper. This issue was decided by the Labour Court in favour of the workmen and the employer was granted liberty to prove misconduct by adducing further evidence. Accordingly, further evidence was adduced before the Labour Court by the employer to prove the alleged misconduct. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, held that the employer failed to prove the alleged charges and, accordingly, set aside the order of discharge passed by the employer and directed reinstatement of the workmen with continuity of the service and full back wages.

(3.) AGAINST the order of the Labour Court, the employer company filed appeals under section 84 of the Act before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court formulated the following points for decision :