RATILAL B RAVJI Vs. TATA SPORTS CLUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition at the instance of the petitioner Ratilal B. Ravji is directed against the award dated 4-6-1994 passed by the 7th Labour Court, Bombay in Reference (IDA) No. 95 of 1991 whereby the said Labour Court rejected the reference made at the instance of the petitioner.

(2.) TATA Sports Club, the respondent No. 1 (for short "club") is the club governed by its own rules and regulations. Its membership comprises of the Directors, officers and all employees of the Tata Companies details of which have been given in the rules and regulations and such other Tata and Associate Companies/organisations which the managing committee may determine from time to time to be eligible for the membership of the Club. The Club is situated at Bombay House, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Bombay. The aims and objects of the Club are to organise, promote and afford facilities for indoor and out-door games, any form of athletics, sports, recreation (including library and reading room), sporting events, social meetings, entertainments, exhibitions or displays, and to organise meetings for the said purpose. The aims and objects of the Club as provided in the rules and regulations are:

(3.) TO carry out its activities in consonance with its aims and objects, the club employs number of employees. According to the petitioner Ratilal B. Ravji (for short "workman") there are about 25-30 employees working in the Club while according to Club there are 11 employees working in the Club including clerical staff. The workman was appointed as marker by the Club somewhere in the month of October 1983. It is the case of the workman that in the month of March 1988 he suffered injury in his right leg and was under treatment at Pathak Clinic. He intimated about the injuries suffered by him to the Club. In April 1988, the case of the workman is that he met with an accident by fall from a ladder and was immobilised. This information was also communicated to the Club. In the month of September 1988, the workmans case is that he could not attend the work due to pregnancy of his wife. In October 1988, the petitioner was under medical treatment and he submitted medical certificate to that effect to the Club. The workman received a charge sheet on 8-11-1988 of the alleged misconduct of absence from duly on various dates in the month of March, April, September and October 1988. The charge sheet was replied by him on 8-11-1988. According to the workman, his services were terminated illegally on 12-5-1989 on the alleged ground of grave misconduct and past record of service. An industrial dispute was raised by the workman demanding his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages which was referred for adjudication to the 7th Labour Court. The workman filed statement of claim. In the statement of claim it was averred by the workman that his services were wrongfully and illegally terminated. The enquiry of the alleged misconduct was held in total violation of principles of natural justice and no opportunity was given to him for explaining his absence. He was also not provided with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. According to the workman, the Enquiry Officer was totally biased and prejudiced and was partial in the entire proceedings. He intended to favour the Club and, therefore, the enquiry proceedings were vitiated.