MIRZA MARUFUDDIN Vs. GALAXY KNIVES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Industrial Court, Nasik, dated July 10, 1987 made in Revision Application (ULP)No. 25 of 1987 under the provisions of Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) THE First Respondent manufactures industrial knives in its factory at Nasik. On July 26, 1975 the Petitioner joined the service of the First Respondent as a Turner in highly skilled category and was last drawing a wage of Rs. 450/- per 5 month. Towards the end of March, 1980 (there is dispute as to the exact date), he was directed to prepare 24 knives. It is the case of the Petitioner that, though he was given a drawing of the circular knives to be prepared and some oral instructions were also given to him by his Supervisor, Gajjar, he felt that the instructions given by Gajjar were sufficient to prepare the knives. According to the petitioner, he being only a workman, and Gajjar being the Supervisor, he decided to carry out the oral instructions of the supervisor, prepared one sample of the knife and showed it to Gajjar. Gajjar approved the sample and, thereafter, on March 28, 1980 he prepared 13 knives in similar fashion. On the next day he turned out 11 more knives similarly. Some time on April 5, 1980 Supervisor Gajjar called him and informed him that the 24 knives produced by him were not according to the specifications and drawings. On April 13, 1980 the Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet by which he was charged with misconduct under Regulation 25 (m) of the applicable Service regulations ("habitual neglect of work, or gross or habitual neglect or wilful interference with the work of others" ). An enquiry was held into the charge-sheet given to the Petitioner, which resulted in the Enquiry Officer finding him guilty of the charges. The petitioner was thereafter dismissed from service.

(3.) THE Petitioner challenged his dismissal as an unfair labour practice by his Complaint (ULP)No. 123 of 1980 before the Labour Court at Pune. The Labour Court, by its Order dated January 9, 1987, took the view that, at the highest, it could be said that there was some kind of negligence on the part of the Petitioner, which, per se, did not amount to major misconduct under the Service Regulation 25 (m) sufficient to dismiss the Petitioner from service. The Labour Court was also of the view that, considering the circumstances, the order of termination of service was rather harsh, since the Petitioner had served for more than 5 years and there was nothing adverse in his service record produced by the First Respondent. The Labour Court rightly emphasised that there was no material on record to show as to the exact prejudice or financial loss caused to the First Respondent in order to hold that there was an act of gross negligence on the part of the petitioner. In this view of the mater, the Labour Court allowed the complaint and directed reinstatement of thi Petitioner with full backwages and continuity of service.