MOTIVALA AND NATEKAR Vs. SHANTARAM N WADEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition challenges the award of the Labour Court dated 20. 9. 1999. By this award the Labour court has directed the workman to be reinstated with continuity of service with 50% back wages w. e. f. 31. 7. 1982.

(2.) The main contention of the petitioner is that the Labour Court has misdirected itself while interfering with the punishment imposed by the petitioner on the respondent workman when it had concluded that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse. According to the petitioner, the Labour court has reassessed the evidence on record and concluded that the misconduct has not been proved in the manner that the petitioner contend and, therefore, found that the punishment was too severe.

(3.) The 1st respondent workman was employed as a Pattern Maker in 1968 with the petitioner Company. According to the petitioner, the workman remained absent from duty on several occasions for which he was warned by the petitioner. There was no improvement in the record of the workman and petitioner found that the workman had started his own business which was similar to that of the petitioner's. He had diverted business from the petitioner to himself. The petitioner engaged a detective agency to investigate the matter and a report was submitted on 9. 10. 1981 indicating that the workman was engaged in private business. In fact, a visiting card of the respondent No. 1 showing that he was engaged in such a business was also produced by the detective agency. On 23. 10. 1980 the petitioner informed the e. S. I. Corporation that fake medical certificates were being submitted to them by the workman. The petitioner found that the workman had remained absent for 60 days in 1980, 163 days in 1981 and in January, 1982 he was absent for 10 days. Several memos were issued to the workman directing him to act in a disciplined manner while on duty. As the workman failed to report for duty, on 8. 2. 1982 a charge-sheet was issued to the workman. There were three charges levelled against the workman. The first charge was that, he had habitually remained absent from duty causing the Company's work to suffer; the second charge was that, his absence indicated that he was no longer useful for the Company's work; and the third charge was that, he was attending his private business of pattern making while he remained absent from duty with the petitioner. An enquiry was instituted against the workman in which he participated. The workman did not appoint a defence representative but defended himself at the enquiry. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Enquiry officer found that the workman was absent for 66 days in 1979, 153 days in 1980, 63 days in 1981 and 10 days in January, 1982. The Enquiry Officer also held that the workman was running his own business of pattern making and that the certificates issued by the E. S. I. Panel doctor could not be believed. The workman was discharged from service on 30. 7. 1982.