VINODKUMAR BALKRISHNA DAMANIA Vs. STANDARD BATTERIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to an order of dismissal passed against the Petitioner by Respondent 1 and the affirmation thereof by Respondent 2 in a reference under Section 10(1) r/w 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act).

(2.) The first Respondent, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the employer', had on its rolls several employees, one of them being the petitioner. The petitioner was working with the employer as an electrician for over 7 years and in the year 1969 he came to be promoted as "Electrician", Grade T-6". Petitioner was a subordinate of Felix Simon D'Souza, who was a Section Supervisor of the Maintenance Section. From February to June 1975, the petitioner was served with four show-cause notices asking him to explain this or that alleged lapse. Petitioner submitted explanations to each of the show cause communications. On 17th September, 1975, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, and, this began with a reference to an explanation given by him to a show-cause letter having been found unsatisfactory and not acceptable to the employer. The charge-sheet went on to recite four incidents dated 1 September 1975, 22 August 1975, 23 August 1975 and 25 August, 1975. These together with the incidents referred to in the show-cause letters issued between February to June 1975 amounted to serious misconducts vis-a-vis different clauses of the employer-company's Certified Standing Orders. In view thereof, the employer had appointed an Enquiry Officer to an enquiry into the misconducts attributed to the Petitioner. He was called upon to give a written submission, if so desired, within 48 hours of the receipt of the charge-sheet by him. On 18th September 1975, the petitioner replied to the charge sheet. First, he gave his version in relation to the four events which had taken place on 1 September 1975, 22 August, 1975, 23 August 1975 and 25 August 1975. Next, he expressed surprise at the inclusion of events figuring in the show-cause letters in the enquiry proposed to be carried out against him. His case was that having regard to the inaction of the management for nearly 7 months, it would be a grave injustice to him to hold him responsible for the so-called misconduct flowing from the show-cause letters. The written submission did not deter the employer and in due course, the enquiry commenced. The Enquiry Officer examined witnesses produced by both the sides petitioner being assisted at the enquiry by the recognised Union's Secretary, and submitted a report. Briefly stated, he held the petitioner guilty of all the lapses ascribed to him and opined that these were of a serious nature. The employer, through its Chief Executive, accepted the report and on 1 February 1976 passed the order of dismissal from service. This order was assailed by the Union. The conciliation proceedings having failed, a reference was made by the Government to the Labour Court at Bombay. In the statement of claim, the Union took exception to the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner. According to it, the said charge-sheet was vague in asmuchas it did not specify what exactly was the misconduct that was to be enquired into. The enquiry itself was not conducted properly and the petitioner was disallowed from putting many relevant questions to the witnesses examined at the enquiry. The material that had come before the Enquiry Officer did not warrant the conclusion that the petitioner's guilt had been established. In any case, the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner was extremely harsh. This was disputed by the employer. In its written statement, the employer contended that the enquiry was entirely fair. In regard to the punishment, the same could not be said to be excessive, having regard to the seriousness of the charges proved against the petitioner.

(3.) The Labour Court held that the charge sheet was clear and precise, that the enquiry was fair and proper, that the finding about the petitioner s guilt was borne out by the evidence and that the punishment of dismissal was wholly merited. Holding thus, it rejected the reference and left the parties to bear their own costs.