G K SENGUPTA Vs. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner workman has challenged the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, dated 9 July, 1991 under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act) granting approval to the order of discharge of the petitioner G. K. Sengupta from service. The main ground of challenge is that the said order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the merits of the case. The decision will depend on proper appreciation of the nature of the power of the Labour Court under section 33 (2) (b) of the Act and the scope and ambit of the enquiry for that purpose.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed in the establishment of the respondent company as a junior clerk on 1 June, 1967. He was promoted as senior clerk in 1982. He was working in the Equipment Division. On 21 November, 1985 the petitioner was served with a show cause notice. In the said notice it was alleged that on 11 November, 1985 at about 11. 30 a. m. the petitioner all of a sudden shouted at the entrance of the office and used abusive and derogatory language against the security personnel and the executive of the company. It was alleged that the behaviour of the petitioner was indecent and that he was trying to whip up regional feelings. It was stated that the petitioner was later pacified by another workman of the company. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 21 November, 1985. The company was not satisfied with the explanation. Hence a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner. The following charges were levelled against him : (i) Disorderly or indecent behaviour and use of abusive language while on duty at the place of work; (ii) Commission of acts sub-versive of good behaviour or of the discipline of the establishment. The petitioner submitted his written explanation. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the above charges and the petitioner was asked to appear in the enquiry. The petitioner, however, refused to attend the enquiry, which according to him, was a tailor made enquiry. In his letter, he stated : "you are welcome to proceed ex parte. I shall have a chance to refer your findings to the Supreme Court (Managing Director) for review. " The enquiry officer thereafter conducted the enquiry ex parte and submitted his report and finding to the company on 14 January, 1986. On perusal of the report, the company decided to discharge the petitioner from service. An application was filed before the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra for obtaining approval to the discharge of the petitioner as required by section 33 (2) (b) of the Act.

(3.) THE petitioner filed written statement and resisted the application for approval on various grounds. He denied the charges levelled against him and narrated his version of the incident. He challenged the authority of the A. N. N. Swamy to discharge him as also to file the application for approval before the Tribunal. The punishment of discharge was challenged on the ground that it was vindictive, malafide and extremely disproportionate. The petitioner also filed an application before the Tribunal on 22 June, 1987 alleging perjury against Sri. A. N. N. Swamy which was registered as a miscellaneous application. A notice was issued to Sri A. N. N. Swamy in the above application. In reply, Shri Swamy submitted his explanation. The Tribunal fixed hearing of the above application. Written arguments in respect of the miscelleneous application dated 22 June, 1987 were submitted by the parties. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and by its order dated 9 July, 1991 dismissed the miscellaneous application of the petitioner and held that it was not a fit case for taking action against Sri A. N. N. Swamy for the alleged perjury. The Tribunal by another order of the very same date also allowed the application of the company for approval and granted approval to the order of discharge of the petitioner under section 33 (2) (b) of the Act.