CHHOTABHAI JETHABHAI PATEL Vs. INDUSTRIAL COURT NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution filed by Chotabhai Jethabhai, a bidi merchant. The third respondent Nathu Janu Ukey was employed as a Zal counting Munshi in the petitioner's factory at Bhandara. The petitioner contended that the third respondent had committed acts of misconduct, gross negligence of duty, insubordination and similar offences. A charge-sheet was therefore framed against him in 13-5-1965 and he was given notice to show cause in respect of these charges. The third respondent filed a written statement on 13-5-1965. He was informed that an enquiry officer ordered proceeding his answers, and on considering those statement he held that the charges were proved and the third respondent was dismissed by the order of dismissal to be effective from 1-8-1965.

(2.) THE third respondent filed an application challenging the order of dismissal before the Labour Court at Nagpur under Section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The application was filed on or about 5th August 1965. The third respondent raised several contentions in this application. He complained that the charges sheet was not proper, that the present head office had no authority to deal with the case of the third respondent under the standing orders, that no evidence was led and was filed on behalf of the employer, that the finding is based only on the statement made by the third respondent who was subjected to cross-examination,. that the third respondent was forced to append his signature to the paper without reading it over to him.

(3.) IN his written statement the petitioner traversed several allegations and supported the order. The Labour Court after a thorough enquiry held that the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse, that the order of dismissal was passed by a person not authorised to exercise the power, that the dismissal was illegal and therefore the Labour Court directed that the third respondent should be reinstated and that all the back wages should be paid to him from the date of dismissal to the date of the order.