ADVANI OERLIKON LTD Vs. SHASHIKANT M SABLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the award part I passed by the labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 563 of 1991. The Labour Court has held that the three enquiries conducted against the respondent workman were not fair and proper. It has permitted the petitioners to lead fresh evidence before it in support of the charges levelled against the respondent workman. The main reason which appealed to the Labour Court for concluding that the enquiries held against the workman were in breach of the principles of natural justice is that the enquiries were not conducted in a language known to the workman i. e. , Marathi. The Labour Court was of the view that the enquiry officer who was a Konkani speaking person was not qualified to translate Marathi into English and vice versa. The Labour Court was of the view that this has caused prejudice to the workman and has therefore set aside the enquiry.

(2.) The facts may be adumbrated as follows: Show-cause notices were issued to the respondent workman for various acts of misconduct. Thereafter on 13-5-1989, 10-7-1989 and 22-8-1989, charge-sheets were issued to the workman for these acts of misconduct. Domestic enquiries were instituted in respect of all the three charge-sheets. The workman was defended by a representative of his choice who was the office bearer of the union of which the workman was a member. Three separate enquiries were held in which the workman was represented by the same defence representative. When these enquiries commenced, the workman insisted that the proceedings should be conducted in marathi as he had no knowledge of English. The enquiry officer, therefore, conducted the enquiry in Marathi and recorded the proceedings of the enquiry in english. On each day of the enquiry, the notes of the proceedings were furnished to the workman and his defence representative. The workman has endorsed these notes of enquiry, in Marathi, on almost all the days barring a few, that he had not understood anything. The enquiry officer has noted the questions put by the defence representative, who admittedly knew English, to the non Marathi speaking witnesses at the enquiry in the question and answer format. The enquiry officer then submitted his report finding that the workman was guilty of the charges levelled against him in all the three enquiries. On the basis of the reports submitted by the enquiry officer, the petitioner dismissed the respondent workman from service.

(3.) The workman raised an industrial dispute in respect of his dismissal from service which was referred as Reference (IDA) No. 563 of 1991 before the labour Court. The workman in the statement of claim filed by him has pleaded inter alia that the domestic enquiries conducted against him were in breach of the provisions of the model standing orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act and were therefore, violative of the principles of natural justice. It was pleaded that the enquiry had been conducted in English and not in marathi as requested by the workman. Besides this, it is contended that the workman was not paid subsistence allowance in accordance with law and therefore the enquiry is vitiated. In its written statement, the petitioner has denied the allegations contained in the statement of claim. Evidence of the workman was recorded before the Labour Court. He has stated that he was educated upto the 7th standard in Marathi medium. He has also stated that he had endorsed the notes of enquiry furnished to him by recording that he had not understood anything. The workman has stated that the petitioner's witness Mr. Desai deposed in English and the enquiry officer had not translated the deposition into marathi for him. He has also stated that the conversation conducted between the enquiry officer and the management representative was in English throughout the enquiry. As regards the third enquiry in respect of the charge-sheet dated 23-8-1989, the workman has stated that the enquiry was conducted in Marathi. However, the proceedings were recorded in English. According to the workman, the recording of the proceedings in English was not explained to him in Marathi at any point of time. In his cross-examination, he has conceded that his defence representative did pose questions to the petitioner's witness in English and they were answered by the witness in the same language. He has conceded that his defence representative had questioned the witnesses on his behalf. The workman has further stated that the enquiry officer did not explain the day's proceedings to him as recorded by him.