LAWS(BOM)-2007-7-126

RAMDAS GANPATRAO SATPUTE Vs. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD

Decided On July 17, 2007
RAMDAS GANPATRAO SATPUTE Appellant
V/S
BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the petitioner has challenged the award dated 11/10/1994 made by the Labour Court, Chandrapur in Reference (I.D.A.) Case No. 8 of 1990 answering the same in negative i.e. against the petitioner-employee and thus rejected his reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.

(2.) The petitioner was working with the respondent-industry since 1968 as Machine boy. He was charge sheeted by the respondent-employer with a sole charge that in the night of 07/01/1982 he had thrown three packets of gas welding rods and three pieces of brass bush weighing about 4.00 kg. from the boundary wall of the Mill on the public road and then after finishing his duty at about 5.45 a.m. when he was collecting said articles in a bag, he was caught red handed by the watchmen who were on surveillance on him. He was then brought towards factory gate where the Security Officer recorded his statement of admission of the theft committed by him. The charge sheet was served on him on 08/01/1982 to which he had submitted his reply on the very next day i.e. on 09/01/1982 denying the charge levelled against him. In his reply he took the stand that he was assaulted by the Watchmen and was forced to make confession and put his signature thereon and was handed over to the police in the same night. An enquiry was held into the said conduct and enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer. In the enquiry the petitioner also examined one defence witness by name Kashinath Thakre who made a statement that the petitioner was on duty throughout and did not go anywhere to throw anything outside the factory premises. The management examined the Watchmen as well as Mr. A. I. Joseph, Security Inspector. The petitioner was found guilty of the charge levelled against him and was dismissed from service. The Labour Court, in the Reference that was made to it at the instance of the petitioner initially framed a preliminary issue regarding fairness of the enquiry and by an order dated 23/3/1994 held that the enquiry was fair and proper. Thereafter, the Labour Court heard the parties on merits and made final order on 11/10/1994 and answered the same against the petitioner by holding that termination of service of the petitioner was justified and no interference was called for. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner made following submissions: