SAHNEY KIRKWOOD PVT. LTD. Vs. B.G. KONDKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of proceedings in Reference (IDA) No.243 of 1977 started at the instance of the respondent who was formerly the workman of the petitioner Company. The respondent was served with a charge-sheet on 10th of Dec. 1976 and pursuant to the said charge-sheet an inquiry was held against him on 15th of Dec. 1976. It has been mentioned that a finding was recorded by the inquiry officer on 18th of Dec. 1976, but we notice that in fact no finding at all was recorded by the inquiry officer. But we will proceed on the basis that the inquiry officer submitted his report on 18th Dec. 1976. The respondent was thereafter dismissed by an order passed on 22nd of Dec. 1976.

(2.) A reference of the dispute thus resulted from the order of the -dismissal passed against the respondent was referred to the Second Labour Court at Thane. In the Labour Court the respondent stepped into the witness-box and deposed that the inquiry held by the petitioner company suffered from various errors and in particular the same suffered from the violation of the rules of natural justice. Accepting the contention of the respondent the Labour Court by its judgment and order dated 24th Jan. 1983 held that the inquiry was unfair and improper and not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The inquiry and, therefore, the finding, if any, recorded-in the said inquiry were naturally get aside. This order of the Labour Court has been challenged in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the -Constitution of India.

(3.) Miss Pradhan, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition, has taken us through the judgment of the Labour Court and the other material relevant to the determination of the question before us which has been annexed to this petition, In particular, a copy of the inquiry proceeding dated 15th Dec. 1976 has been annexed as Exhibit '8' to this petition. It has been contended by Miss Pradhan that the finding of the Labour Court that the respondent was not giver, opportunity to cross-examine the witness produced on behalf of the management is factually incorrect and if a finding has been given by the Labour Court on this incorrect fact that finding is liable to be interfered with by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Miss Pradhan pointed out to us the end portion of the inquiry proceedings wherein the inquiry officer had asked Mr. Sable, the witness on behalf of the management, whether he wished to add anything to his statement. Sable gave a somewhat long reply to this question and in this reply he has stated what he regarded were the duties of a timekeeper, which was the positioned held by the respondent in the petitioner company. Sable also mentioned that with fifteen years of experience if the respondent has committed the mistakes, which had been mentioned by him earlier in his deposition, then there must be some bad intention in the mind of the respondents According to Miss Pradhan, when the inquiry officer asked Sable whether he wished to add anything to his statement the inquiry officer was only asking Sable to sum up the evidence which be had already led.