SIDRAM YELLAPPA JADHAV Vs. NARSINGGIRJI MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Industrial Court in two different appeals under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Since the question of law as well as of facts involved in both the petitions are common, by consent they are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2922 of 1980 was employed with the 1st Respondent Mill as an unskilled worker for about 12 years till he was dismissed on 5th Sept., 1976. The dismissal was effected as a consequence of a departmental inquiry instituted on a charge which was vague as it could be. The charge states that "the management had a grave suspicios that the Petitioner had so in the mill-premises counterfeit canteen coupons on a large scale and thus put the company to a financial loss. The selling of counterfeit coupons in the premises of the mill for cash without the permission of the management was illegal and hence the Petitioner had committed an offence of creating industrial unrest by his ill-disciplined behavaour" In the inquiry, the management examined its witnesses which included the departmental head one Pradhan, the Sizing Supervisor Yellappa and the Sizing Jobber Ananta Ramchandra. These witnesses were cross-examined by the Petitioner. The Petitioner, statement was also recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Even during the course of the inquiry, it was not suggested to the Petitioner that he had sold the so called counterfeit coupons to any particular person or persons nor were the purchasers of. such coupons examined. It is also interesting to note that when the Petitioner himself was examined the only thing which he had admitted was that he had sold the coupons but had denied that they were counterfeit. This is relevant because admittedly the workers get coupons from the 1st Respondent Mills on credit and the value thereof is subsequently deducted from their salaries. It is not unknown that the workers who have such coupons either loan or sell them to those workers who do not have them. It is at no stage suggested that the Petitioner had sold the tickets at profit. Admittedly, further, the coupons sold by the Petitioner were never seized nor produced in the inquiry nor. was it proved otherwise that they were counterfeit. This was in keeping with the vagueness of the charge which did not mention either the date, the time and the place of the sale of the coupons or the person to whom they were sold. What is more interesting is the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer which was solemnly accepted by the Mill Authorities. We will do no better than reproduce the same which speaks for itself:

(3.) Both the findings and the recommendations for punishment were accepted by the Chief Executive Officer of the Mills and the Chief Executive Officer by his order dated the 5th Sept., 1986, dismissed the Petitioner.