V A SABASTIAN Vs. JAYA HIND SCIAKY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an award (Part-11)dated December 20, 1988 made by the 2nd Labour Court, Pune, in Reference (IDA) No. 106 of 1988 (New) (Reference (IDA) No. 244 of 1983 (old) under the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')

(2.) THE Petitioner is an ex-employee who was working in the service of the 1st Respondent in its establishment at Chinchwad, Pune. On March 15, 1982 the Petitioner was served with a chargesheet in which it was alleged that on March 9, 1982 between 9. 30 to 10 a. m. he was found idling away his time by sitting on a table instead of working at his work place and was reprimanded by foreman Tiwari to go to the place of his work and carry on his job. It was alleged that the petitioner refused to obey the instructions and arrogantly replied to Tiwari that he would not do any work, nor go to his place of work. Even when advised by Assistant Manager Dalvi, the petitioner refused to go to his place, behaved rudely and abused Tiwari in filthy language, using choicest abuses in the presence of all the officers and employees of the Production Department. A detailed inquiry was held into the said mis-conducts alleged against the Petitioner, as a result of which the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was guilty of the charges. At the stage when the 1st Respondent employer was about to take a decision on the quantum of punishment to be imposed on the Petitioner, a registered Trade Union by name Engineering labour Union (CITU) operating in the 1st Respondent's establishment, of which the Petitioner was a member, interceded on behalf of the petitioner. As a result of the intercession by the said union, an agreement dated November 12, 1982 was arrived at between the said Union and the management of the 1st Respondent on the action proposed against the Petitioner. The relevant clause in the said agreement is as under:

(3.) AFTER the said agreement, an order was passed on November 20, 1982 by the 1st Respondent revoking the suspension of the Petitioner and directing him to resume work. In the said order, the 1 st Respondent, stated, "we have received the report of the inquiry and our decision on the basis of the inquiry shall be conveyed to you in due course of time"