DORABJEE AND COMPANY Vs. ANIL SOMNATH SHELGAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition challenges the Award dated 15th September 1993 passed by the 3rd Labour Court, Pune in Reference (IDA) No.18 of 1990 directing the Petitioner to reinstate the first Respondent in his original post with effect from 18th August 1989 with full back wages and continuity of service. The Petitioner had terminated the services of the first Respondent on the ground that his work was unsatisfactory and he was unsuitable for continuing in employment. While terminating his services on this ground, the Petitioner, by way of abundant caution, had also tendered notice wages and retrenchment compensation as required under law. The Labour Court in its Award has held that the termination of service was illegal as no enquiry was held against the first Respondent.

(2.) THE facts in this case are not in dispute. The Petitioner had received several complaints from its customers that the first Respondent who was working as a salesman in its departmental store was impolite and rude to the customers. The Petitioner called upon the first Respondent to improve his work and to change his attitude so that the customers ' needs were catered to properly. The first Respondent showed no improvement in his behaviour. The Petitioner was therefore left with no alternative but to terminate his services at the close of the working hours on 18th August, 1989. The Petitioner attempted to serve the first Respondent a letter terminating his services by way of simple discharge. Retrenchment compensation and notice wages were also tendered at the same time. On account of the first Respondent 's refusal to accept both the letter and the amount tendered to him, the Petitioner sent the same by registered post on the same day. This letter and the payment were again refused by the first Respondent.

(3.) EVIDENCE of both the parties was led. The Petitioner examined three witnesses, one of whom was the Manager of the Departmental Store. A customer who had complained against the first Respondent The third witness examined by the Petitioner testified about the first Respondent being gainfully employed in some other establishment. The first Respondent examined himself. All the witnesses for the Petitioner deposed to the effect that the first Respondent was rude and his work was unsatisfactory. The customer also deposed to the fact that the first Respondent was not attentive in his working. The written complaints of other customers were also placed on record by the Petitioner.