A R SATHYE Vs. S G CHEMICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the reasons discussed in later part of this judgment, the petition is dismissed and rule is discharged with a direction to respondent No. 1 to deposit in Court or pay amount equivalent to six months salary last drawn to each of the petitioner in full and final settlement of the petitioners claims whatsoever (ex-gratia) on the conditions set out in the last paragraph of this judgment. The abovereferred direction is issued with consent of respondent No. 1 conveyed to this Court through its learned Counsel.

(2.) THIS petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India. By this petition, the petitioners have impugned award dated 31st August, 1987, made by Shri R. M. Pathare, Presiding Officer, Eighth Labour Court, Bombay in reference (IDA) No. 378 of 1982. By letters dated 21st September, 1981, issued by respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 terminated the services of petitioners 1 to 7 on the ground that the petitioners had lost confidence in the said workmen. By letters dated 6th October, 1981, the respondent No. 1 similarly terminated services of petitioners Nos. 8 and 9 on the same ground. The basic facts concerning the termination of the petitioners services are identical. In all the said letters, the respondent No. 1 referred to and relied upon Clause 3 of Letter of Appointment, concerning each of the workmen, the said clause being identical, in all respects. The Government of Maharashtra made a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of Industrial Dispute between the petitioners and respondent No. 1 as contemplated under section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said reference pertained to demand for reinstatement of the petitioners with full back wages and continuity of service. Two of the petitioners were employed in pharmaceutical Division of respondent No. 1 prior to being terminated. By the impugned award dated 31st August, 1987, the reference was rejected by the Eighth Labour Court. In other words, the claim made by the workmen for reinstatement etc. , was rejected by the Court. The said order of termination were proceeded by a departmental inquiry to which reference would be made in the later part of this judgment. The facts are also set out with reasonable accuracy in the impugned award of the Labour Court. I am in agreement with the ultimate conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court. The relevant facts are briefly summarised hereinafter.

(3.) IT is not disputed that on 27th June, 1981, the petitioners occupied "conference Room" in the office building of respondent No. 1 between 6-30 p. m. and 7-30 p. m. without any permission of the management. It is not disputed that 27th June, 1981 was a Saturday and the office timings were only upto 1 p. m. The respondent No. 1 recorded statement of one Mr. M. Salim, the Watchman, in writing to the effect that the petitioners were on the 6th floor of the office building of respondent No. 1 on that day, during the hours indicated above. The management took a serious view of the unauthorised user of the conference room by the petitioners. There was a discussion between the representatives of the management and one Mr. Bhavani Shankar, General Secretary of the concerned Union as admitted by Mr. Bhavani Shankar himself during the course of his deposition before the Enquiry Officer. Each of the 9 petitioners addressed a letter of unconditional and unqualified apology stating therein that each of the said workmen had unauthorisedly used the conference room of the company on 6th floor, Express Building "for private entertainment" on 27th June, 1981. It was stated in the said letter of apology that the petitioners regretted for the said wrongful user of the office premises. It was further stated in the said letter of apology that the petitioners may be excused for their wrongful action. By the said letters of apology, each of the petitioners gave an assurance to the management to the effect that such wrongful acts shall not be repeated in future. One Mr. Nair authorised representative of the management had prepared a working draft of the proposed apology for discussion with Mr. Bhavani Shankar. According to him Mr. Bhavani Shankar the General Secretary of the Union, the said draft was discussed, revised and modified and a final draft was then prepared with consent. Bhavani Shankar states in his deposition recorded in the domestic inquiry that he had persuaded each of the workmen to tender written apology in terms of the abovereferred draft finalised by the union secretary as aforesaid. According to the statement of Bhavani Shankar before the Enquiry Officer, the representatives of the management had told him then that they will conduct preliminary enquiry to know the purpose of staff members occupying the conference room and a light punishment in the nature of warning letter would be given. The events that followed are summarised hereinafter.