GOTIRAM SAVLIRAM CHOUDHARY Vs. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an Award dated 24th March, 1986 of the Industrial Tribunal, Nasik, made in Complaint (IT/N) No.2 of 1985 in Reference (IT/N) No.30 of 1983 made under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE short facts which need be recounted for deciding this case are: THE Petitioner was employed as a driver in the service of the First Respondent from the year 1966. From 27th December, 1980 all the workmen of the First Respondent were on strike in which the Petitioner also participated. On 27th February, 1981, the Petitioner was served with a notice of termination of his employment. He was informed that with effect from Thursday, the 5th March, 1981 (AN), his services would be terminated on the ground "Services no longer required in the interest of the Company", under Order No.18(i) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company applicable to him. He was also offered by money order, an amount equivalent to wages of the remaining notice period. On 2nd April, 1981, the Petitioner was issued a letter informing him that his Appeal E96 dated 31.3.1981 addressed to the General Manager of the First Respondent had been favourably considered and that the General Manager, after due consideration, had agreed to reinstate him back in service, as a special case. Consequently, he was informed that he was thereby reinstated in service with immediate effect and further that he would not be entitled to any benefit whatsoever for the period of his dismissal. Soon thereafter, on 6th April, 1981, the Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet. Two charges were levelled against him in the charge-sheet. THE first, that between the period 27th December, 1980 to 15th March, 1981, the Petitioner had gone on strike. THE second charge was, that on 9th March, 1981, the Petitioner along with certain other employees of the First Respondent had abused and assaulted Senior Design Engineer, V.R.Chakravarthy, who was driving the vehicles of the First Respondent Company. THE Petitioner was charged with misconduct under clauses 9, 12 and 46 of Standing Order No.27 of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the workmen of the organisation. A lengthy enquiry was held in which the Petitioner participated. the Enquiry Officer after assessing the evidence at the enquiry found the Petitioner guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. consequently, he was dismissed from service by an order dated 19th August, 1982 for having been found guilty of the charges alleged against him vide charge-sheet dated 6th April, 1981.

(3.) MR. Gadkari, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, urged the following contentions for my consideration : (a) That the Tribunal erred in taking the view that on 9th March, 1981, the Petitioner was an employee of the First Respondent subject to its disciplinary jurisdiction under the provisions under Certified Standing Orders, (b) That the enquiry held against the Petitioner was invalid in law and contrary to the principles of natural justice and (c) That, in any event, even if everything was assumed against the Petitioner, the order of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate.