BAJAJ AUTO LTD Vs. SHIVRAM A JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the award dated 6th March, 1995 passed in reference (IDA) No. 86 of 1988.

(3.) FEW facts relevant for the decision are that, the petitioner is a public limited company and the respondent no. 1 was working as a Carpenter with the said company. There was a settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the workman in relation to the various matters pertaining to the service conditions of the workman including the norms to be fixed by the employer in relation to the production output by the workman within the time standards to be specified by the employer, and accordingly the petitioner had fixed the time standards for the purpose of service to be rendered and in relation to the duties to be performed by its workman including the respondent no. 1. In december, 1979 as well as in December, 1983 and in December, 1984, some warnings were given to the respondent no. 1 on account of less production and certain minor misconduct on the part of the respondent no. 1. On 5th february, 1985, a charge-sheet was issued to the respondent No. 1 on the ground that his performance did not disclose satisfactory and required production within the time schedule fixed in accordance with the settlement dated 22nd November, 1981, and inspite of various warnings, there had been no improvement in his performance, besides that he was not giving the production as was being given by the various other workmen and the production given by him was comparatively on lower side and the same disclosed habitual neglect of work, disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders issued by his superiors and deliberate less production amounting to misconduct under standing order No. 24 (m) and (a) of the Model standing Orders. After holding the inquiry and considering the findings of the inquiry officer as well as the reply of the respondent no. 1, the petitioner passed the order of dismissal of the respondent no. 1 from the service with effect from 7th January, 1987. Pursuant to the dispute raised, the reference was made to the Labour Court at Pune. After taking note of the purshis filed by the parties confirming that the workman had no grievance about the legality and propriety of the inquiry in the matter and the fact that the inquiry was fair and proper was admitted by the workman, the Labour Court held that it was not necessary to decide the preliminary issue in that regard and proceeded to deal with the following issues, taking into consideration the inquiry proceedings as well as the evidence which was stated to have been led before the labour Court by the parties, including the documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner;