ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Vs. KRISHNA VITHAL BENDRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. By consent of the learned counsel and at their request heard forthwith.

(2.) THE first respondent was employed as a packer with the petitioner on January 1, 1988. While he was working with the company, a complaint was lodged by Francis D'souza, an employee of the company that on February 7, 1995 the first respondent assaulted him while on duty. A notice to show cause was issued to the first respondent calling upon him to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The first respondent submitted a reply. The management decided to convene a disciplinary proceeding against the first respondent inter alia on charges of drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the establishment and for the commission of an act subversive of discipline and good behaviour. The first respondent denied the charges. An Enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the disciplinary enquiry. The management as well as the workman were represented in the course of the enquiry. Francis D' Souza was examined in the course of the disciplinary proceedings. The workman deposed in the course of the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer completed his enquiry on July 5, 1995. According to the management the workman was furnished with an opportunity to defend himself and the enquiry was conducted in Marathi, a language known and understood by the workman. The report of the enquiry officer was submitted on july 21, 1995. The charge of misconduct was held to be proved. The report was forwarded to the first respondent on July 29, 1995 so as to enable him to submit his reply to the findings. The first respondent availed of that opportunity and submitted his reply on August 7, 1995. By an order dated August 14, 1995 the management came to the conclusion that the charges against the workman stood established. The charges were of a serious and grave nature. Though there was no adverse past record the management decided to dismiss the workman having regard to the serious nature of the misconduct and the gravity thereof.

(3.) AN industrial dispute was raised and referred to adjudication. Initially, on October 10, 2001 the Labour Court held that, the enquiry was not fair and proper and that the findings were perverse. The Part I award was impugned before this Court and on June 10, 2002 a Learned single Judge of this Court set aside, with the consent of both the parties that award and remitted the proceedings back to the labour Court. Parties thereafter led evidence on the fairness of the enquiry and by an order dated March 31, 2005 the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the findings were not perverse. Thereafter oral evidence was adduced on the quantum of punishment. The first respondent deposed in his support whereas the management adduced the evidence of its own witness.