MAHARASHTRA TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. SUREKHA J TAMBEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.83 of 1989 and by the Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No.93 of 1996.

(2.) The respondent employee was working as a Typist cum Clerk w.e.f.1983. She was confirmed in service from 1.1.1986. A chargesheet was issued to her for certain acts of misconduct. An enquiry was conducted against her and the petitioner dismissed her on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer. Aggrieved by the petitioner's action, the respondent-workman filed complaint (ULP) NO.83 of 1989 under Items 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. S . The Labour Court held that although the enquiry was held in a fair and proper manner, the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse. Evidence was adduced before the Labour Court by the petitioner in order to prove the charges levelled against the respondent workman. The Labour Court held that the charge of misappropriation was not proved and, therefore, came to the conclusion that an unfair labour practice had been committed by the petitioner under Item 1(b) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Labour Court therefore, directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman with continuity of service and full backwages.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed revision application (ULP) No.93 of 1996. By a judgment dated 28.8.1986, the Industrial Court dismissed the revision application. The Industrial Court held that the findings of the Labour Court, based on an appreciation of evidence, were correct and that the Labour Court had committed no error on the face of the record. The Industrial Court then considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that it was difficult for it to comply with the order of the Labour Court. The Industrial Court considered the fact that it was not possible for the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman and, therefore, accepted the offer made on behalf of the petitioner to accord some alternate relief to the workman. The Industrial Court has observed thus: