RAM SHIROMANI SONI Vs. BOMBAY DOCK LABOUR BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner No. 1 is a workman employed with the first respondent. Petitioner in his petition has set out that he is a senior and active member of the Bombay Transport and Dock Workers Union. Petitioner was served with a letter dated 29th April, 1991 on 4th May, 1991. The said letter was issued by the Labour Officer, suspending the petitioner No. 1 pending enquiry in terms of Regulation 44 (3) of the Bombay Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1956. The order of suspension also called on the petitioner No. 1 to submit his explanation in writing within three days of the receipt of the order why severe disciplinary action should not be taken against the petitioner No. 1 in respect of the incident that occurred on 26-4-1991 at about 1. 00 p. m. In the said letter, it was also set out that the Secretary of the first respondent had forwarded a complaint lodged by Shri M. N. Shinde, Senior Assistant and Shri S. B. Chunekar, clerk-cum-typist of the Welfare section that the petitioner alongwith Shri Chattu Jathan and Shri Narottam R. Jaiswal alongwith other workers numbering about 25 entered the office premises and started making enquiries about the allotment of housing quarters. In the said letter, it was also disclosed that Shri M. B. Shinde, Senior Assistant was called upon to explain the said fact and as Shri Shinde was about to explain the stand taken by the Secretary, the petitioner No. 1 alongwith Shri Chattu Jathan and Shri Narottam Jaiswal started assaulting Shri Shinde mercilessly for no cause or any provocation and apart from Shri Shinde, Shri S. B. Chunekar, clerk-cum-typist who was nearby was also assaulted. Petitioner No. 1 by his representation dated 4th May, 1991 replied to the said show-cause notice. In his reply, at the very outset, the petitioner set out that the petitioner No. 1 on 26-4-1991 was in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay right from 11. 00 a. m. before the Division Bench, whereby a matter pertaining to their Union being Writ Petition No. 762 of 1991 was listed. That the petitioner was present in the High Court alongwith the present General Secretary and 50 other workers. That the matter reached at about 1. 20 p. m. and was adjourned to June, 1991. That thereafter, the petitioner accompanied the President, General Secretary and other office bearers for the conference with the Unions Lawyer and reached the Union Office at about 16. 00 hrs. The petitioner by the said explanation also requested that his suspension be revoked. Petitioner thereafter has been immediately sent other representation requesting that his suspension be revoked. However, the said request was not accepted.

(2.) THE further contention of the petitioner No. 1 that he was served with the notice of enquiry proceedings on 17th July, 1991 to be held on 24th July, 1991. The enquiry was to be conducted by the Labour Officer who had issued the suspension order. Petitioner No. 1 also averred that at the time of giving his explanation to the show-cause notice, the petitioner No. 1 had requested for a copy of the alleged complaint forwarded by Shri Shinde and Shri Chunekar. The petitioner No. 1 once again reiterated his request by his letter dated 18th July, 1993 to the Enquiry Officer-cum-Labour Officer. The petitioner No. 1 thereafter was given a copy of the complaint which accompanied letter dated 24th July, 1991. The enquiry commenced on 24-7-1991. At this stage, it would be pertinent to note that the enquiry was a joint enquiry in respect of three employees viz. , the petitioner No. 1, Mr. Chattu Jathan and Mr. Narottam R. Jaiswal. On behalf of the employers Board, several witnesses were examined. Similarly, the petitioner No. 1 examined as a defence witnesses several co-workers. The Enquiry Officer thereafter submitted his report dated 29th April, 1992 in respect of the joint enquiry. The Enquiry Officer in the finding report held that Shri Chattu Jathan did not participate in the said melee; that Shri Narottam R. Jaiswal had proceeded on privilege leave from 16-4-1991 and returned only on 6-7-1991. That, in so far as the petitioner No. 1 was concerned, the Enquiry Officer held that petitioner No. 1 guilty of the charges levelled. The Enquiry Officer thereafter forwarded the finding report to the Deputy Chairman, the Disciplinary Authority in terms of Clause 44 (4) for the purpose of imposing higher punishment. In the said finding report, it was mentioned that the finding report is being forwarded for imposing higher punishment apart from the petitioner No. 1, also on the other two employees. By a memo dated 16-2-1993, the Deputy Chairman informed the petitioner No. 1 that on careful consideration of the Enquiry Officers Report and the evidence on record submitted to the Deputy Chairman in terms of Clause 44 (5) of the Scheme, the Deputy Chairman accepts the finding and the report of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner No. 1 was found guilty under Clause 44 (5) of the Bombay Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1956 read with Clauses 7 and 10 of the Standing Orders for Registered Dock Workers of the Bombay Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1956. The petitioner No. 1 was informed that in terms of Clause 44 (6), it was proposed to impose on the petitioner No. 1 the penalty of dismissal from BDLB service. Petitioner No. 1 was therefore, called upon to submit within 14 days from the date of receipt of the memo such representation as he wish, against the proposed penalty of dismissal based on the basis of the evidence advanced during the enquiry. Petitioner No. 1 was further informed that if no representation is submitted within the period specified, it will be presumed that the petitioner has no representation to make and proposed penalty would be imposed without any further reference to him.

(3.) PETITIONER No. 1 by his representation dated 22-2-1993 acknowledged the receipt of the memo dated 16-2-1993. The petitioner No. 1 by the said representation requested the Disciplinary Authority to make available some documents including requisite Standing Order etc. in order to enable him to reply to the memo dated 16-2-1993. The documents sought for by the petitioner No. 1 were forwarded to the petitioner No. 1 by the memo dated 25-2-1993.