SATISH GANESH SAPHTARSHI Vs. KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against an Order of the First Labour Court, Pune, dated 30th April, 1986, in Complaint (ULP) No. 13 of 1984, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE Petitioners are the ex -workmen of the First Respondent -Company, which carries on manufacture of oil engines in its factory at Kirkee, Pune. It appears that the workmen of the First Respondent were represented by two different unions of divergent views, viz., Association of Engineering Workers, to which the Petitioners belonged, and another I. N. T. U. C. affiliated union, by name Rashtriya Engineering Shramik Sangh. There was a practice of paying homage to the memory of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, every year, on Shiva Jayanti day, during which the workmen would offer floral tributes to the photograph of Shivaji Maharaj in the workshop. 24th April, 1982 happened to be the day of Shiva Jayanti. Floral tributes were offered to the photograph of Shivaji Maharaj within the premises of Shop A. There was an altercation between workmen during the course of which two workmen, by name Kul and Aphale, were assaulted. Kul was seriously injured and suffered a fracture of his nasal bone. The Petitioners were served with charge -sheets dated 13th May, 1982, in which it was alleged that, though permission to hold the pooja of Shivaji Maharaj had been granted only to representatives of Rashtriya Engineering Shramik Sangh, and despite request for permission to perform pooja in Shop A, the Petitioners had been specifically informed that, after the official pooja was performed, a similar pooja on behalf of the union of the Petitioners would be performed only by the officers concerned, they had taken the law into their own hands and created disturbance during the pooja, causing a violent incident in which the Petitioners had severely assaulted two workmen by name Kul and Aphale. For this act, the Petitioners were charged with misconducts under Standing Orders 22(11) and 22(12) and called upon to face an inquiry.

(3.) THE domestic inquiry was held by an independent inquiry Officer, K. N. Hinge. It is significant to notice that, in reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 29th April, 1982, the Petitioners filed a reply on 3rd May, 1982, in which they demanded that all reports/complaints and statements recorded, on which the charges were based, should be made available to them before they were called upon to show cause. They also contended that without such documents it would be impossible for them to give proper and effective reply to the show -cause notice. This request of the Petitioners was summarily brushed aside, and, by the charge -sheet itself, the Petitioners were informed : 'Similarly the reports of which you have demanded copies would not be filed in the inquiry, which would be held against you. The decision of the inquiry will not depend upon such reports. The use of the said reports has been made only to find out whether or not there is a prima facie case. The persons who made these reports would be examined as witnesses at the inquiry and you will have the right to cross -examine them.'