RASIK GOVIND MANEKAR Vs. OBEROI TOWERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order and judgment dated 7.8.2002 in Revision Application (ULP) No. 143 of 2001. Some of the material facts of the present case are as under :

(2.) The petitioner was an employee with the respondent no.1 since 1.4.1982. The petitioner joined the services as a utility worker in Kitchen Stewarding department bearing Clock No. 1858. The petitioners last drawn up wages was Rs.8600/- per month. It is the case of the petitioner that during the period 15.10.1996 to 12.1.1997 the petitioner was suffering from mental depression and was under mental treatment and thus could not report on duty and he resumed the duty only on 12.1.1997. He produced the fitness certificate dated 15.4.1997 after resuming the duty on 12.1.1997. Thus the petitioner was absent from duty for a period of 89 days. Accordingly the respondent issued a chargesheet on 12.1.1997 charging the petitioner with a misconduct as specified in standing order which inter-alia provided "absence without leave for more than 10 consecutive days" The petitioner filed a reply on 31.5.1997 to the said chargesheet and ultimately a domestic inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. After conducting the domestic inquiry an inquiry report was made and inquiry officer ultimately recommended by his report dated 4.8.1998 that the petitioner should be dismissed from service. After the report is made a show cause notice is issued on 31.5.1996 by the disciplinary authorities forwarding the findings of the inquiry officer and seeking reply of the petitioner thereof. The petitioner replies to the said show cause notice on 5.9.1998 and ultimately the disciplinary authority by an order dated 24.9.1998 dismissed the petitioner from the service.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner moved a complaint under the provisions of Section 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act being Complaint (ULP) no. 587 of 1998 against the respondent alleging unfair labour practice under Items 1(a), 1(b), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act and inter-lia prayed that the petitioner should be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages and should be given other benefits by setting aside the order of dismissal. The respondent replied to the said complaint and after the reply is filed a preliminary issued was framed i.e. whether the inquiry conducted by the respondent employer was fair and proper inquiry or it was in breach of the principles of natural justice or that the said findings are perverse. By an order dated 11.7.2000 the Vth Labour court held that the inquiry against the petitioner was just, legal and proper and the finding drawn by the Inquiry Officer are not perverse. The said order of the Labour court on preliminary issue dated 11.7.2000 was not challenged by the petitioner and thus the Labour Court thereafter proceeded further with the hearing of the said complaint. After hearing the parties the Labour Court upheld the dismissal order of the petitioner by an order dated 19.7.2001 and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner herein.