TATA MEMORIAL CENTRE Vs. SANJAY SHARMA DR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No. 1 herein filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 69 of 1994 before the VII Labour Court at Bombay against the petitioner herein. The said complaint was filed under the provisions of Item No. 1 (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU and PULP Act.) In the said complaint the Respondent No. 1 herein also sought interim reliefs. The Labour Court by its order dated April 28, 1994 was pleased to grant prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the application for interim reliefs. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner herein preferred Revision Application (ULP) No. 58 of 1994 before the Industrial Court at Bombay. The Industrial Court initially granted an interim order. It may also be mentioned that the Respondent No. 1 herein had also preferred revision application which was numbered as review application 7 of 1994. Both the revision applications and the review application were disposed by the common order dated July 14, 1994. It is against these orders in complaint (ULP) No. 309 of 1994 and revision application (ULP) No. 58 of 1994, that the petitioner has approached this Court by way of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) BRIEF narration of the facts may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of these petitions : The petitioner has issued charge sheet dated December 12, 1992 against the Respondent No. 1. The charges were as under :

(3.) BASED upon the charge sheet, an inquiry was conducted by Dr. M. G. Deo, Director, Cancer Research Institute, Parel, Bombay-12. Dr. Deo submitted his report dated August 27, 1993. In his report Dr. Deo held charge No. 1 as not proved, charge No. 2 as not proved, charge No. 3 has not been substantiated. In respect of charge No. 4, Dr. Deo held that in signing the receipt and falsely certifying reimbursement claims and the essentiality Certificate, Dr. Sharma has committed administrative impropriety. Charge No. 5 was held as not proved. At this juncture it would be relevant for the purpose of discussion to indicate the findings and conclusions in so far as charge Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, as they are the subject matter of the subsequent action by the petitioner. In so far as charge No. 4 is concerned, the findings are as under :