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-teacher 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 merits-list. there has also been a 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 buildings 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 the nefarious activities were going etc. In fact, there were about two or three letters which the said Principal received. Some were anonimous, 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 sport. All the activities obviously could not have been done unless respondent No. 1 who was a watchman, was a party to some, or at least, without his connivance, it is also a case pleaded by the employer/ society that when the Principal begging his pardon and assured him that such events would not be repeated. All this took place in the months of December 1981. The management Committee of the school took a very serious note of these letters which were sent by the organisations 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 the Services) Rules. 1981. (hereinafter referred to the 'the Rules') which permitted them to dismiss the employee without holding any Department Enquiry. They on the basis of that the 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.

(3.) THE order of dismissal came to be challenged by the respondent/employee by way of the 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 MRPU 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. His further contented that he had approached Praja Sattak Shikshan Sanstha, Maharashtra Rajya, nagpur, complaining about he illegal heavy work-load given to him, which irked the management. He also contended that the misconduct alleged in the letter dated 1. 2. 1981 was nothing but an eyewash 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 (Principal) 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 the Schedule IV to the MRTU and PULP Act. It will not be out of place here it mention that he 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.