FACTORY MANAGER, HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition No. 3750 of 1998 is filed by the employer while the other writ petition No.4126 of 2000 is filed by the employee, challenging the very same judgment delivered by the Industrial Court, Amaravati in Revision ULP No. 134 of 1994. The employee had filed Complaint ULP No. 123 of 1992 before the Labour Court at Amaravati and the same has been allowed on 26th April, 1994 by the Labour Court, Amaravati granting reinstatement to the empoloyee on his former post with continuity of service and full backwages. This judgment of Labour Court was challenged by the employer in Revision under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (hereinafter referred as "M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act"), which came to be Registered as Revision ULP No. 134 of 1994. The said revision has been decided on 31-08-1998 and the Industrial Court has while upholding the application of mind by the Labour Court could not have permitted employee to go scot free in view of misconduct proved against him. But instead of itself pronouncing any punishment, it remanded the matter back to Labour Court for that purpose. The employer has questioned this order of remand contending that the Industrial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction available to it in not reversing the judgment of Labour Court and not dismissing ULP complaint filed by employee. More than two years after the judgment of the Industrial Court, the employee has filed Writ Petition No. 4126 of 2000 contending that the Industrial Court could not have remanded the matter back to the Labour Court and there was no question of imposing any punishment in the matter on him.

(2.) In Writ Petition No. 3750 of 1998 filed by employer, this Court has while issuing Rule on 21-02-1998, granted interim relief and stayed the judgment of Industrial Court and further proceedings in ULP Complaint No. 123 of 1992 before the Labour Court, Amaravati. The said interim order is operating even today.

(3.) The facts in the matter are not in dispute. The misconduct alleged by employer against employee is proved in Departmental Enquiry and said Departmental Enquiry is found to be fair and valid by the Labour Court. Not only this, the Labour Court has also found that findings of Enquiry Officer were not perverse. It is, therefore, appropriate to point out the misconduct, which is found to be proved against the employee even by the Labour Court and thereafter by the Industrial Court. The misconduct is under Clauses 24(k), 24(1) and 24(y) of the Model Standing Orders framed under Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The employee was working as unskilled workman and on 17-06-1991 at about 6.50 a.m., he entered the shampoo factory and went to Superior Mr. S.V. Deshpande, who at that time had just entered the factory on his scooter and was parking it. The employee asked some clarification about his Basic Salary and Mr. Deshpande advised him to contact Personnel Department, as Mr. Deshpande was not aware about those details. Mr. Deshpande then started walking towards his office in shampoo factory and when he had climbed first step of the stairs, he felt something sharp being stabbed on back side of thigh. He immediately turned around and saw employee trying to push a long pointed knife (Gupti) into him. Because of his turning around, the weapon did not penetrate his leg, but damaged his trousers. Mr. Deshpande thereafter caught hold of his both hands and shouted for help. He struggled with employee for about 5 minutes, when employee holding knife was trying to push it into Mr. Deshpande.