NAGARE P D Vs. SKF BEARINGS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the awards dated November 16, 1990 and January 24, 1991 made by the 2nd Labour Court, Pune, in reference (IDA) No. 409 of 1988 under the provisions of Section 2a of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE relevant facts : The Petitioner was employed as a Packer in the employment of the 1st respondent in its factory from 1977. On June 16, 1987, while working, he suffered an employment injury which caused him some disability and made it difficult for him to use his hand. On January 22, 1988, after about one year, he was called upon to work on the Rivet insertion Machine No. 424. While he was working on the said machine, he did not run the machine at the normal speed, but continued to run the same at a slow speed. He also broke the punch and the nozzles on the said machine and did not obey the instructions given to him by his official superiors in regard to the running of the said machine. The Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated January 25, 1988 in which it was alleged that he had purposely run the Rivet machine at slow speed and deliberately broke the punch and nozzles of the machine in order to disturb the setting of the machine and that he had deliberately flouted the instructions given to him by the superiors for running of the said machine. The Petitioner gave his written explanation on January 30, 1988, in which he admitted that while he was working on the Rivet machine, the punch and nozzles had broken. His explanation, however, was that after the employment injury sustained by him in 1986, he had been continuously working in the Departments of Assembly inspection, Packing, Stamping, Washing, Special Line, etc. and was not given work on the machine, that on January 22, 1988, after a lapse of almost two years, he was called upon to work on a machine and being long out of practice, he found it difficult to operate the machine. Consequently, the machine was run slowly in the beginning and also resulted in the punch and nozzle being broken. He denied that he had intentionally broken the nozzle and the punch or that he had deliberately refused to follow instructions given to him by his official superiors. A further charge-sheet dated February 16, 1988 was also given to the Petitioner in which it was alleged that on January 22, 1988, at about 10. 05 hours, he was found near the punching clock of Turning department, though as an employee working in the Bearing Assembly Department, he was required to punch the clock provided in the Bearing Assembly Department. It was also alleged that his Manager, M. G. Chavan, had instructed him to go back to Bearing Assembly department, but the Petitioner disobeyed the instructions and punched his clock card in the punching clock provided in the Turning Department and went out. That charge-sheet against the petitioner also alleged several mis-conducts under the Certified Standing Order and he was called upon to face the domestic inquiry. By a separate finding given by the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner was found guilty of the following misconducts :

(3.) THE Petitioner raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement in service with continuity and back wages which came to be processed under the statutory machinery and resulted in Reference (IDA) No. 409 of 1988 being made to the 2nd Labour Court, Pune. By a Part-I Award dated november 16, 1990, the Labour Court found that the inquiries held into the two chargesheets dated January 25, 1988 and February 16, 1988 were legal, fair and proper and that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in both the inquiries were proper and not perverse. The Labour court thereafter posted the Reference for further hearing on the merits for justifiability of the punishment and for deciding the relief, if any, due to the workman. By the Part-II Award dated january 24, 1991, the Labour Court found that there were no circumstances which required interference with the order of dismissal passed against the Petitioner workman and that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of dismissal was legal, proper and justified. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court by its Part II Award dated January 24, 1991 rejected the reference and denied relief to the Petitioner. Hence this Writ Petition.