MARUTI DATTATRAY PATANKAR Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR KOLHAPUR ZILLA SHETKARI VINKARI SAHAKARI SOOT GIRINI LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an Order of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur dated March 7, 1989 made in Revision Application (ULP) No. 44 of 1986 under 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 1st Respondent is a Cotton Textile Spinning Mill at Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur. The petitioner was employed as a Jobber in its service. On March 2, 1983 the Petitioner was served with a show cause notice calling upon him to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for an alleged misconduct which he had committed on February 25, 1983. The Petitioner by his reply dated March 4, 1983 denied that he had committed any misconduct as alleged and pointed out the circumstances under which the show cause notice needed to be shelved. By a charge sheet dated March 12, 1983 four allegations of misconduct were levelled against the Petitioner and he was directed to attend an inquiry to be held by one B. K. Chavan, Assistant Labour Officer, on March 18, 1983. The charge sheet was sent by registered Post and apparently received by the Petitioner about 4/5 days after the appointed date of inquiry. By his reply dated March 22, 1983 addressed to the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner pointed out that, though he had been directed to attend the inquiry on March 18, 1983 at 3. 00 p. m. , he had received the charge sheet only on March 22, 1983 by Registered Post A. D. and, as such, he could not remain present in the inquiry. Instead of rescheduling the inquiry, the petitioner was straightaway served with an order dated October 19, 1983 by which he was informed that he was being given one month's wages in lieu of one month's notice as provided under the Standing Orders applicable to the establishment of 1st Respondent and forthwith discharged from service. He was also directed to collect all his dues from the office on any working day.

(3.) THE Petitioner challenged the termination of his service by his Complaint (ULP) No. 77 of 1983 before the Labour Court at Kolhapur under Items 1 (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV read with Section 28 of the Act. The case made out in the Complaint of the Petitioner was that, though the order of termination of his service was innocuously worded, it was really punitive for reasons which had been indicated in the aborted charge sheet issued to him earlier. Strangely, the 1st Respondent refuted this stand and, in paragraph 5 ofthe Written Statement, contended that there was no question of producing documents and proving the charges, since it had, under the standing Orders and under the circumstances, power to act in the interest of efficient working and discipline. It also contended in paragraph 9 of the Written Statement, "the charge sheet and proposal of inquiry have nothing to do with the ultimate termination order. The termination order is in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders". Finally, in paragraph 11 of the written Statement, the 1st Respondent contended that the case was not one of dismissal or any punishment, but one of simple termination as provided under the Standing Orders. The Labour court tried the complaint and raised the following issues which it answered as under :