EMCO TRANSFORMERS LTD Vs. S P SHOUCHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Challenges Part 111 Award dated May 18, 1992 made by the 3rd Labour Court, Thane, in reference (IDA) No. 144 of 1978 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")

(2.) THE first respondent was an employee of the petitioner company working in the factory the material time, loyed as a "group Department of the petitioner company from January 2, 1964. The workmen working in the, petitioner company were represented by a trade union known as Association of Engineering Workers. During the period October 1977 to January 1978, the workmen had resorted to a sit down strike as part of their agitation for better benefits. This strike was declared to be an illegal strike by the competent Court. The petitioner was employing about 31 workmen as temporary workmen, who also participated in the strike. For this reason, the petitioner decided to terminate their services. On December 1, 1977, at about 3. 30 p. m. the temporary workmen were called to the cabin of I. M. Saxena, Manager (Personnel and Administration), and issued letters terminating their services. After about 14 workmen had been served such letters of termination, it was noticed that the first respondent and two of his co-workmen, Patil, Bhosale and several other workmen gathered outside the cabin of Saxena and collected the letters of termination served on the temporary workmen. The first respondent and Patil were also instructing the other workmen, who were yet to be served with orders of termination not to sign on the duplicate copy of the letter in acknowledgement of the receipt of the order. The work of service of termination orders continued on that day upto about 4. 30 p. m. At about 5. 00 p. m. , Saxena came out of his office and went near the parked car by which he was to be carried home. While waiting for his colleagues to join him he observed the petitioner twirling his moustaches and swaggeruig towards him. In the meanwhile, Sambus, Deputy Manager (Manufacturing), Mehta (Maintenance Engineer) and a security guard came near the car and all of them sat in the car, Saxena being seated on the rear seat. As the car started moving, the petitioner and Bhosale came in front of the car and obstructed the movement of the vehicle. In the meanwhile, a police jeep came inside the factory and upon seeing the police, Saxena got down from the car, went to the police officer and narrated the incident to him. Presumably being reassured by the police officer, Saxena came back to the vehicle, sat in it and the vehicle started moving out. Once again, the petitioner and Bhosale, obstructed the vehicle when the car came close to the main gate of the factory. Bhosale stood in front of the car while the petitioner came round the right side of the car where Saxena was sitting, inserted his hand into the, gap in the half-raised window glass, shouted obscene abuses against Saxena and said, "unless you take back the temporary workers you would not be allowed to leave the factory alive ", all the while banging on the window glass and trying to pull it down. In the meanwhile, the police officer rushed towards the car, caught hold of the first respondent and took him away in the jeep. A criminal complaint against the -first respondent came to be registered by Saxena. For the [0'above acts of misconduct on his part, the first respondent was served with a charge sheet dated December 4, 1977 and directed to give his explanation and appear for an enquiry. An enquiry was held, but since the enquiry was sub-sequently held to be bad in law by an order of this Court, it is unnecessary to deal with the details of the enquiry. Suffice it to say that, by a judgment dated July 12, 1991 (per Kantharia, J.) in writ petition No. 151 of 1985, this Court held to that the enquiry held against the first respondent was defective and remanded the Reference to Labour Court with a direction that the petitioner and the first respondent to give an opportunity of leading evidence on the merits of case. The ls said order of remand was challenged before the Supreme Court by a Special Leave. Petition which was summarily dismissed by an order of the Supreme Court dated December 3, 1991.

(3.) AFTER remand of the Reference, the Labour Court permitted the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. The petitioner examined Inder Mohan Saxena, Manager (Personnel and Administration), Chandrakant Bhikaii, Sambus, Deputy Manager (Manufacturing), Yeshwant Nathoba Patil, Cashier, Kannhayalal Prabhashankar Joshi, Chief Production and Project Manager, and Tokrshi Premaji Poladia, Maintenance Engineer. The first respondent examined himself. Upon assessment of evidence, the Labour Court took the view that the evidence on record did not prove the misconduct against the first respondent and its impugned Part III Award dated May 18, 1992 directed the petitioner to reinstate the first respondent with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from May 5, 1978. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has moved this writ petition. So