BHAGWAN DHONDU TARKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, facts are common and the law points are the same and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners, in all the writ petitions, were in the employment of the second respondent. They were charge-sheeted on 24th November, 1981, inter alia, alleging against them that they assaulted one D.T. Jadhav, second respondent's Security Officer/Incharge, near Vasai Railway Station on 15th November, 1981 at about 6.30 p.m. The charge framed against them was 'riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment or any act subversive of discipline". The petitioners submitted their written explanations on 30th November, 1981 denying the charges levelled against them as false and fabricated and further contending that they were being victimised for their trade union activities. The petitioners were suspended pending domestic enquiries. Thereafter, domestic enquiries were held by one Namdco K. Aher. The petitioners participated in the said enquiries and were defended by one P. Ganguli, a trade union representative. The Enquiry Officer held the petitioners guilty of the charges levelled against them and relying upon his findings, the second respondent-company vide their letters dated 18th January, 1983 dismissed the petitioners with effect from 20th January, 1983. The petitioners resisted their dismissals by letters dated 23rd January, 1983 that the same were illegal and improper.

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioners approched the Government Labour Officer and lodged complaints with him and raised industrial disputes for their reinstatement vide letters dated 25th February, 1983 addressed to the Commissioner of Labour. The Conciliation Officer initiated conciliation proceedings but the disputes could not be settled and, therefore, failure reports were submitted. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour by his orders dated 22nd November, 1983 refused to refer the disputes relating to the petitioner's demands for reinstatement on the ground that the references were, prima facie, not justified having regard to the merits of enquiries, nature of misconduct and punishment awarded. The said orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour refusing to make references under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are impugned in these four petitions.