JAISINGH BAPU MORE Vs. NEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality of the Award dated Oct. 17, 1981 passed by the Presiding Officer, 8th Labour Court, Bombay rejecting the demands of the workman for reinstatement, back wages, etc. The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner.

(2.) The respondent No.1 is a partnership concern and had employed about 25 workmen at the relevant time. The petitioner was working as a Moulder and was a daily rated workman. On Dec. 3, 1977, it is alleged that the workman deliberately disconnected the terminal wire of the heaters and connected it to the neutral phase resulting in the complete cutting of the circuit and loss of production for 48 hours costing the Company about Rs. 10,000.00. The petitioner was served with show cause notice to explain why he should not be charge-sheeted and was also suspended on the same day. The second show cause notice was served on Dec. 4, 1977. The petitioner sent reply on Dec. 5, 1977 denying that he had committed any misconduct. On Dec. 8, 1977, the petitioner was informed that an enquiry will be held against him for the misconduct alleged. The petitioner sent reply on Dec. 11, 1977 complaining that the date and time of the enquiry is not mentioned and so also who is the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner requested that he may be allowed to be defended by Datta Chakre, who according to the petitioner is an Union Official. The employer replied on Dec. 15, 1977 stating that the enquiry would be held on Dec. 18, 1977 at 1 p.m. and the workman should remain personally present and nobody else will be allowed to defend him. The petitioner claims that this letter was received by him on Dec. 20, 1977 and on the same day a letter was sent to the employer seeking some other date. The employer claims that on Dec. 24, 1977, letter was sent fixing the enquiry on Dec. 29, 1977, but the petitioner remained absent and, therefore, another letter was sent an Dec. 29, 1977 fixing the enquiry on Jan. 1, 1978. The petitioner disputes the receipt of those two letters dated Dec.24 and Dec.29, 1977. On Jan. 1, 1978, neither the petitioner, nor his Union Official was present and the enquiry proceeded ex-parte and after recording the statements, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty and the order of dismissal was passed. The petitioner complained that he was dismissed from employment without holding an enquiry and in any event, the enquiry was defective. After failure of the conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court.

(3.) The Labour Court, after recording evidence, came to the conclusion that the enquiry held was fair and reasonable and the workman deliberately remained absent. The Labour Court also found that the charges were specific and the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer could not be faulted. The Labour Court further considered under Sec. 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act as to whether the punishment was harsh and unjust and taking into consideration the gravity of the charge, found that the punishment was justified. In accordance with the finding, the demands made by the workmen were rejected. The petitioner feeling aggrieved has approached this Court in writ jurisdiction.