A.A.H. NAGARWALA Vs. KINETIC ENGINEERING LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER a domestic enquiry of the charge of sleeping and misbehaviour while on duty, the enquiry officer had recommended the dismissal of the petitioner/worker and the said decision was upheld by the learned Presiding Officer of the IInd Labour Court, Ahmednagar in his judgment date October 13, 1993. The learned Judge confirmed the findings of fact that the petitioner was found asleep on duty, and that when attempts were made to wake him up he has given false excuse for not doing the work and finally indulged in insubordination. The court below had discussed these points in paragraph No. 8 of the Judgment.

(2.) MR . Prabhakaran submitted that neither the mis -conduct was very serious nor was the punishment proportionate to the misconduct. We agree with the learned Judge of the Labour Court that sleeping on duty accompanied with false excuse and insubordination does amount to a serious mis -conduct of major nature. The punishment awarded is neither shocking nor disproportionate. Apart from this consideration it is to be noted that, in the past also, the petitioner was warned atleast on four to five occasions for several lapses. They are listed in the order of dismissal dated, 2nd April, 1985, (Exh. E. Page 13). Mr. Prabhakaran relied upon the ruling in Pralhad Narayan Malwade v. Shivram Sahakari Karkhana Ltd. and Ors. 1991 2 CLR 729 but in that case also, it was held on somewhat similar facts that the fault was not minor. The petitions preferred by the employer were dismissed because, in that case, the Labour Court had exercised its discretion in reducing the punishment imposed upon the worker by the employer. Mr. Prabhakaran's next contention was that in the court below the employer was allowed to be represented through a lawyer whereas the petitioner did not have any lawyer to represent him. He relied upon Section 36(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. We do not think, that in the present case, there is any misjudgment on facts or on application of law. Therefore mere fact that the lawyer was allowed to represent one party and not the employee, would not vitiate the decision of the lower court.

(3.) THEREFORE , we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the court below.