PRAKASH MAHADEV NIGAMPURKAR Vs. PREMIER AUTOMOBILE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges an award dated 6th February, 1989 made by the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Pune, in reference (IDA) No. 127 of 1981 (new No. Reference 98 of 1982) under the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) THE Petitioner was employed in the Machine Tool Division of a company known as "cooper engineering Ltd. " at Pune as a Machine Operator on last drawn wages of Rs. 600/- per month. The Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated May 24, 1980 by which three charges were levelled against him. The first charge pertained to an incident, which was alleged to have taken place on May 11, 1980, during which the Petitioner was alleged to have unlawfully gathered the machine Operators around him, causing their to stop work as a protest against calling of the second shift lathe operators to work in the first shift. It was also alleged in the first charge-sheet that the Petitioner had, at 11. 30 a. m. on the same day, instigated his co-workmen to an illegal tool down strike. The second charge was that on May 20, 1980 the Petitioner had collected a group of about 100 to 125 workmen and led them to the Office of Assistant General Manager (Personnel) and, when instructed not to come in a group. But to send a small number of representatives for redressal of grievance, if any, the Petitioner was alleged to have resorted to vituperative arguments and use of abusive, indecent language against the Management. It was also alleged that, at 4. 15 p. m. on the same day, the Petitioner had taken the same group of workmen to the office of the General Manager, where also, he had argued in arrogant manner and used abusive and indecent language by taking a prominent part in the incident. The third charge against the Petitioner was that, on May 21, 1980, he had coerced the bus driver carrying the workmen of the employer's establishment to take the bus to the Swargate Policy Station and, after detaining the bus there for considerable time, the Petitioner had forced the driver of the bus to take the bus to a place near Mangala Talkies, after which it was permitted to proceed. A lengthy inquiry was held into the charges levelled against the petitioner. Finally, by an Order dated November 28, 1980, the Petitioner was informed that the Inquiry Officer had found him guilty of the third charge levelled against him by the charge-sheet dated May 24, 1980, that the competent Authority concurred with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and, as the charge proved against the Petitioner was of a grave and serious nature warranting dismissal from service, it was decided that he should be dismissed from service of the Company. Consequently, the Petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from November 28, 1980. The Petitioner raised an industrial dispute for his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages and the said dispute was referred to the Labour Court vide Reference (IDA) No. 127 of 1981.

(3.) IT is important to notice here that the charge-sheet and the dismissal order were both issued by cooper Engineering Ltd. , which was the owner of the Chinchwad Machine Tool Division, where the Petitioner was employed. Consequently, the industrial dispute raised was between Cooper engineering Ltd. and the Petitioner and it was, therefore, Cooper Engineering Ltd. which was the party to the order of reference.