MAHADEO SAKHARAM SASANE Vs. TATA MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Mahadeo Sakharam Sasane, was in permanent employment of the respondent No. 1. His services came to be terminated by order dated 29th November, 1978 for alleged theft of 3/4 meter of cloth worth about Rs. 5/ -. The petitioner approached the Labour Court under section 79 read with section 78 and 42 (4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 ("b. I. R Act" ). The Labour Court held the dismissal to be illegal and directed respondent No. 1 to reinstate the petitioner without back wages but with continuity of service for the purpose of gratuity and pension. The petitioner was aggrieved by the denial of back wages. He, therefore, appealed to the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay. The appeal was dismissed by the Industrial Court by order dated 7th October, 1987 (Exhibit C to the petition ). The petitioner has challenged the order of the Industrial Court before this Court by the present writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner contends that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court and the Industrial Court were not justified in denying the benefit of back wages while directing his reinstatement. To appreciate contention of the petitioner, it may be expedient at this stage to briefly state the material facts of this case. The petitioner was working in the cloth department of the respondent No. 1 for a period of about 18 years. On 25th September, 1978, a chargesheet was served on him alleging that he was caught red handed by the watchman of the Mill with a piece of cloth belonging to the Mill. He was charged with commission of misconduct under Standing Order 21 (d) (k ). A domestic inquiry was instituted against him. A complaint was also filed with the police and he was prosecuted in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar for commission of offence under section 381 of the Indian Penal Code. He was however acquitted of the charge for commission of the said offence. It was held by the Metropolitan Magistrate in his judgment dated 30th January, 1979 that the whole case rested on the speculation of the prosecution witness No. 1. It was further observed that the prosecution did not adduce any evidence to show that the particular piece of cloth was stolen from the premises of the Mill of the respondent No. 1 nor the date, time and place of theft was proved by the prosecution.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the proceedings in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, domestic inquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the basis of the charge-sheet served on him. As already stated, the charge was of commission of theft of 3/4th metre of cloth by the petitioner on 7th Sept. , 1978 at about 12. 10 midnight. It was alleged that the said piece of cloth was found hidden inside the umbrella of the petitioner. The petitioner denied the charge. The Inquiry Officer however found him guilty of the charge of theft in respect of 3/4th metre of cloth and on the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer, his services were terminated by the respondent No. 1. The order of termination was challenged by the petitioner before the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the management was right in accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer despite the finding of the Criminal Court in favour of the petitioner. The Labour Court observed that though in the past there were some warnings to the discredit of the petitioner-workman between 1971 to 1973, none of them pertained to an act of the nature alleged against him in the present case. It also took note of the fact that the stolen property was only 3/4th metre of cloth worth about Rs. 5/ -. The Labour Court, therefore, found the punishment to be shockingly disproportionate and accordingly directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service for the purpose of gratuity and pension but without back wages.