(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the orders of the Labour Court, Thane, dated April 18, 1985 and January 24, 1986 made under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) THE salient facts relevant for deciding this writ petition are as under : The First Petitioner is a Company which carries on the business of manufacturing Steel Ingets and Rolled Products. The First Respondent was employed in the service of the First Petitioner as an Electrician from or about 1979. He was paid a salary of Rs. 850 per month. While in service he was given a letter dated March 31, 1981, by which he was informed that he had been appointed as an Electrical Supervisor with effect from November 3, 1979 and that his services had been confirmed with effect from May 3, 1980. Apart from describing him as an Electrical Supervisor, this letter of appointment does not indicate the nature of work which was to be carried out by him as an Electrical Supervisor On June 13, 1981, when the rolling mill was in operation, the electrical motor was stopped by the first respondent at about 2 -15 p.m. There is controversy between the parties as to the exact reason for stopping the rolling mill. The first respondent's version is that the electrical mill was making noise indicating over -loading on account of overfeeding and that continuation of the operation of the mill under such circumstances might have caused damage to the motor, because of which he switched off the motor. The Petitioners'version is that the first respondent had stopped the motor without any justifiable cause. What transpired thereafter is also a matter of controversy. The Petitioners' version is that 3 or 4 of the co -workmen approached the first respondent and asked him the reason for shutting off the motor. Instead of behaving, civilly with them, he abused them and slapped 2 or 3 workers. According to the Petitioners, on June 13, 1981, all the 44 workmen of the rolling mill had signed a joint memorandum addressed to the Manager of the petitioner -factory complaining against the first respondent, saying inter alia, that he, 'quarreled with us, abused us and also slapped 2 -3 workers from amongst ourselves. Therefore, we all workers are bringing to your notice that there is danger to anybody's life from amongst ourselves'. The workers, therefore, asked for action being taken in the matter. The last signatory to the said memorandum is one Gopal Singh, Foreman of the said rolling mill. Gopal Singh had also made a written complaint to the Manager in which he said, inter alia, that the first respondent was not a good workman, that he intended to damage the mill and when the mill was giving full production, he had stopped the mill without any cause. The situation which developed thereafter is best described in his own words : 'When I enquired with him as to why he has stopped the mill, he asked me as to who I was to ask him about it, when I am incharge of the Plant. He also abused Rampal Singh and Mohan Ram. He also slapped some workers. He is trying to create terror in the plant. He quarrels with workers on petty things. He also abuses me. He has threatened me saying that he will see me outside.' On these facts he requested that the first respondent be removed from service and for necessary legal action. Interestingly, on the same day there was a complaint made by the first respondent to the Manager, presumably placing on record his version of the incident. Two Officers Lalitkumar Gupta and Dixit, and three foremen confabulated on the same day and decided that the first respondent's services deserved to be terminated. Next day, Dixit was asked to investigate the facts and he is said to have made a report conveying the results of his investigation. Thereafter, nothing happened for almost a month. On July 13, 1981, a letter was issued to the first respondent by which he was informed that, after receiving his complaint as well as complaints from other workers, the Petitioners had taken an explanation -cum -report from the incharge of the rolling mill, Foreman Ram Gopal Singh, and according to that they had come to the conclusion that the presence of the first respondent in the Plant may create violence and accordingly they were constrained to terminate his services with immediate effect. Consequently upon this letter, the first respondent's services were terminated upon payment of one month's notice pay.
(3.) THE parties led evidence on the merits of the case and after assessing the evidence on record the Labour Court made the second impugned order dated January 24, 1986, holding that there was an Unfair Labour Practice engaged in by the Petitioners and directing reinstatement of the First Respondent in service with continuity of service and full back wages with effect from July 13, 1981. Both the above orders are impugned in the present writ petition.