PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD Vs. H S T HEGDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Writ Petitions are directed against the judgment and order dated 7th may 2004 passed by the Industrial Court Mumbai dismissing the revision applications filed by the petitioners in both the petitions against the judgment of the Labour Court in the complaint bearing ho. ULP/322/1992, The Labour Court while deciding the complaint filed by the workman held that he had proved that the employer had committed unfair labour practice under item 1 of schedule IV of mrtu and PULP Act and had set aside the order of dismissal but restricted the backwages to 60% from the date of dismissal to the date of superannuation. Being aggrieved both the employers and the workman filed separate revision applications both of which were dismissed by the common judgment which is impugned in this petition.

(2.) The respondent no.1 in Writ Petition No.2908 of 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was employed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company' ). The Company issued two charge sheets to him on 11th December 1991 and 24th April 1992 for the alleged misconducts. After holding an enquiry in which the workman was found guilty, by an order dated 22nd September 1992, the Company terminated the services of the workman. The workman had previously filed a complaint under section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair labour Practice Act, 1971 (for short "mrtu and pulp Act) which on his dismissal was amended to challenge the dismissal order. The workman challenged the order of termination as an unfair labour practice falling under item 1 of schedule IV of the mrtu and PULP Act. As the Labour Court found that the enquiry was defective it allowed the Company to adduce evidence to support the order of termination. After considering the evidence adduced before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that on 23rd April 1992, the workman left his place of work, went to the canteen and instigated the workers there over the quality of chapatis. Thereafter he started shouting, using and used un-parliamentary language and hurled abuses. The Labour Court accordingly held that the workman was guilty of the misconduct. It however held that the punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct. It therefore held that the employer was guilty of committing unfair labour practice falling under clause (g) of item 1 of schedule IV of the mrtu and PULP Act.

(3.) The Labour Court has also recorded a finding that the employer was also guilty of victimization falling under clause (a) of item 1 of schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. However, it has not given any reasons why it considered the order as termination by. way of victimization. Counsel for the workmen was also unable to point out any thing from the judgment or the evidence to show that the order was of termination by way of victimization amounting to an unfair labour practice falling under clause (a) of item 1 of schedule IV of the MRTU and pulp Act. That finding therefore, has to be set aside.