M/S. FORCE MOTORS LIMITED BEING A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MUMBAI, PUNE ROAD, AKURDI, PUNE 411 045 Vs. MR. SUBHASH SIMRATMAL GUGALE, INDIAN INHABITANT, RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 86, SECTOR 25, PCNT NIGADI, PUNE 411 044

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - Rule. Having regard to the challenge raised made returnable forthwith and heard.

(2.) The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 02.12.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (For short the said Act ). By which order, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner herein came to be dismissed and resultantly, the order passed by the Controlling Authority dated 29.09.2014 came to be confirmed.

(3.) The Petitioner herein is in the business of manufacturing of Automobiles and has its factory in Pune. The Respondent No.1 herein was employed with the Petitioner as a senior clerk in the security department. It seems that the Respondent No.1 had an altercation with another workman in the security department and in the said altercation which took place, the Respondent No.1 and the other workman were found to be shouting and abusing each other. It seems that the two workmen indulged in a physical scuffle, as a result of which they suffered grievous injuries, for which they had to be taken to the medical center to medical attention. The said conduct of the workmen resulted in disturbing the atmosphere at the workplace and resulting in a disorderly and undisciplined scene at the workplace. On account of such conduct, the Respondent No. 1 and other workman both suspended. Both of them charge-sheeted on 15.11.2010 under the relevant clauses of the model standing orders, interalia for riotous and disorderly behaviour. An enquiry was commenced against the two workmen. In which enquiry, on the basis of the material on record, the Enquiry Officer in respect of the Respondent No. 1 herein is concerned, held that the charges were proved. The reply of the Respondent No.1 to the said findings of the Enquiry Officer was considered and after taking into consideration the said reply as well as the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the services of the Respondent No. 1 came to be terminated by the order dated 12.03.2011. On the termination of his services, the Respondent No. 1 herein raised a Industrial Dispute. The said dispute has been referred to the Labour Court, Pune and bears Reference (IDA) No.9 of 2012 which is pending.