PERMANENT MAGNETS LTD Vs. UMASHANKAR PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the record and proceedings received as per the order passed on 24-01-2005. The petitioner-Company has challenged the judgment and order dated 28-04-2004 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial tribunal at Mumbai in Application (IT) No. 1 of 2002 filed in Reference (IT) No. 97 of 1992. It was an application filed under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Petitioner-company and the same has been dismissed, as a result of which the dismissal order dated 21-02-2002 stands set aside.

(2.) Rule. Mrs. Dutta waives service for the Respondent. Petition is taken up for hearing forthwith for final disposal.

(3.) Brief facts leading to the impugned order and which are not disputed, could be summarised as under: the Respondent was in the employment of the Petitioner-Company as a semi skilled-A Grade Worker and was a confirmed employee. He was sanctioned leave from 13-06-2000 to 24-06-2000 and he was expected to resume his duties on 26-06- 2000. He failed to report for duty on expiry of leave and hence was issued the charge- sheet-cum-suspension order dated 04-10- 2000. It was alleged that after 26-06-2000 the company did not receive intimation either to extend leave or any reason regarding the employee's failure to report to duty. The company claimed that letters were sent and there was no response. He was charge-sheeted for the following misconducts: 1) 24 (1) Habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than 10 consecutive days or overstaying the sanctioned leave without sufficient grounds or proper or satisfactory explanation; 2) 24 (2) Commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment. While informing him that he remained absent beyond the sanctioned leave from 26-06-2000 to 04-10-2000 continuously, he was placed under suspension and was also informed that the enquiry into charges against him, would be commenced on 14-10-2000 at Adarsha nagar, Seva Sangh, Kajupada, Borivali (E). The charge-sheet was in English and it was served on him in person on 04-10-2000 at the factory gate. The Respondent does not understand English and therefore, on his demand Hindi translation of charge-sheet was supplied subsequently and thereafter, he submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and denied the charges. He remained present in the enquiry on 14-10-2000 and tried to submit medical certificates in support of his contentions that he was hospitalised and therefore, could not report for duty till the end of September, 2000. The enquiry was adjourned and he was advised to submit the medical certificates on the subsequent date. The enquiry officer was changed and the enquiry commenced only in August, 2001 i. e. after about 10 months. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 12-02-2002 and held that charges against the workman, were proved. A copy of the findings was sent to the workman and finally the order of dismissal was passed on 21-02-2002. As a reference for adjudication i. e. Reference (IT) No. 97 of 1992 was pending before the Industrial tribunal an application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was submitted on the same day seeking approval to the order of dismissal. The preliminary point regarding the legality of the enquiry was framed and it was answered against the Petitioner-company after recording the oral evidence on the said point by the impugned award. The learned member therefore, declined to grant approval and dismissed the application.