B M UGALE Vs. RAMILLA ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Award dated 5th January, 1988 made by the Presiding Officer, 2nd Labour Court, Pune, in Reference (IDA) No. 15 of 1985 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE Petitioner was working in the employment of the 1st Respondent as a Fitter since 1st january 1978. The 1st Respondent is a unit carrying business in Engineering Industry and employs more than 20 workmen. On 1st June 1984 the service of the petitioner was terminated by an order which says, "you are in the employment of our factory since 1. 1. 1978. Your services are no longer required. You are therefore discharged. At the time of discharge you will be paid one month's wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation as per rules. You are being paid the amounts today only and are being discharged from service with immediate effect". The petitioner raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement in service with continuity and back wages and his industrial dispute resulted in the Reference being made to the Labour Court. The labour Court by its impugned Award dated 5th January 1988 held that the Petitioner had failed to prove that the service was illegally terminated without following the provisions of the Act and also that he was not entitled to any relief, and rejected the Reference. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) THOUGH ex facie the order of termination of service dated 1st June 1984 has the flavour of retrenchment, surprisingly, before the Labour Court the stand taken by the 1st Respondent employer was totally inconsistent with it. The 1st Respondent contended in its Written Statement that the Petitioner had caused obstruction to the movement of the materials from the factory and had instigated other workmen not to co-operate with the 1st Respondent which resulted in an oral warning being given to him by the 1st Respondent. It was further alleged that, despite the oral warnings, the Petitioner persisted in his conduct of obstructing movement of materials and delivery of goods along with the other workmen. It was considered as serious misconduct, and, therefore, "his termination was effected, which is punitive in nature and therefore the question of following seniority rules does not arise". While the Petitioner was making out a case of retrenchment in contravention of the provisions of Section 25f of the Act. The 1st Respondent specifically alleged that the termination of the service was punitive in nature and did not amount to retrenchment. It is not in dispute that no inquiry was held before the Petitioner's service was terminated.