CARONA SAHU COMPANY LTD Vs. MANSOOR AHMED NOORMIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, Carona Sahu Ltd. seeks to challenge Part 11 Award in Reference IDA 268 of 1984 delivered by Labour Court on February 4,1993. By the impugned Award the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the dismissed employee Mansoor Ahmed in service with 75% back wages and continuity of service from January 10, 1983. At this stage, it ma be mentioned that Part Award is in favour of the Company. Mansoor Ahmed has not challenged Part-1 Award in this writ petition.

(2.) AT the very outset, 1 may point out that broadly the facts of the present writ petition are identical to Writ Petition No. 976 of 1993 and Writ Petition No. 2136 of 1994 which are disposed of by a common Judgment.

(3.) BY chargesheet dated July 22, 1982, the Company alleged that Mansoor Ahmed was allotted work in the first shift on July 19, 20, 21, 1982. At the beginning of the shift, he was found instigating co-workers to resort to go slow and subsequently, he was found indulging in concerted go slow along with other co-workers of the Department ana as a result, production of the Department fell down by 270 pairs as on July 19,1982, 236 pairs on July 20,1982 and 270 pairs on July 21,1982. By the said chargesheet, the Company alleged that even earlier Mansoor Ahmed was advised by his superiors, not to indulge in go slow but he did not follow their instructions. By the said chargesheet, the Company further alleged that Mansoor Ahmed committed breach of the undertaking given to the Company at the time of resumption to work after the lockout imposed earlier by the Company came to be lifted. fin the above circumstances, the Company charged Mansoor Ahmed with gross misconduct under Standing Orders 24 (a) viz. wilful insubordination, wilful slow down in performance of work vide Standing Order 24 (c) and commission of acts, subversive of discipline vide Standing Order 24 (1 ). By reply dated July 29,1982 Mansoor Ahmed denied each and every allegation. He contended that he had given normal production on all the above mentioned dates and the charges levelled against him were false and baseless. He further contended that allegations were made in order to victimize him as he was a member of the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity as "mgku" ). The reply was followed by a Domestic Enquiry. In die said Enquiry, the Company's witness Shri Naik, the Senior Foreman deposed that on July 19,1982, Shri Rao, a Junior Foreman who had since left the services, came to him and reported that despite repeated advices, Mansoor Ahmed had stopped work along with other workers before completing normal production. Shri Naik reported the matter to his superior Officer-in-charge. Shri Naik gave a written Complaint against Mansoor Ahmed. In his examination-in-chief, he has testified that the said Complaints dated July 19, 20, 21, 1982 being Exhibits 1. J and K were written and signed by him. He also deposed to the correctness of the contents of Exhibits I, J and K. He has further deposed in his evidence that on the above three dates, Mansoor Ahmed instigated other workers to stop their work at 2. 35 p. m. , 1. 45 p. m. and 2. 40 p. m. respectively and as a result there was shortfall in production of pairs, numbering 270, 236 and 270 respectively on the aforestated three days. He further deposed that it is only after June 1, 1982 that Mansoor Ahmed started giving less than normal production. Shri Naik also produced Saldo for the month of May 1982 and for the aforestated three days in support of his oral testimony showing fall in production. Shri Naik taken his initials in 82. In his cross deposed that the work of shoe lasting is carried out by a team of five workers and if a worker in the team resorts to wilful go slow then the team work suffers and the normal production will not be attained. Mr. Naik, in his crossexamination has further deposed that he instructed Mansoor Ahmed to give normal production on July 20,1982 also and that he was never informed by Mansoor Ahmed that he was not well. Shri Naik in his evidence has further referred to the agreement between the Management and the Union. He has also referred to the contents of the said Agreement. Similarly, the Company led evidence its behalf of Shri Bangera, the Senior Foreman who has deposed that on July 19,1982, he was in the first shift working with Mansoor Ahmed who was allotted the work of shoe lasting. He has further deposed that the entire team was working slowly and, therefore, he had instructed Mansoor Ahmed not to work slowly. He has further deposed that Mansoor Ahmed stopped his work at 2. 35 p. m. on that day which was before closing hours. Re has further deposed that he has asked Mansoor Ahmed as to why he stopped the work when Mansoor Ahmed replied that he had given the required production. Shri Bangera has further deposed that when he checked Saldos, it was found that l@ the production given was 2160 pairs against the estimated production of 2430 pairs and accordingly, the loss in production was ascertained to be 270 paris on that day. He has further deposed that Mansoor Ahmed continued to go slow even on July 20,1982 and July 21, 1982. Shri Bangera has further stated in his cross examination that he was present in the first shift on July 19,1982 and he was personally aware that Mansoor Ahmed worked only upto 2. 35 p. m. on that date. He further deposed that the hours were from 7. 00 a. m. to 3. 00 p. m. He has further deposed that from 2. 30. p. m. to 3. 00 p. m. he was busy checking the production of the Department. He has further deposed that the Junior Foreman also had reported to him about less production being given by Mansoor Ahmed after 2. 30 p. m. He has, however, stated that he has not made any written Complaints to the Management and that the Complaint has been written by the Senior Foreman Shri Naik. He has further deposed that he has not made a false statement as alleged and that he had no personal grievance against Mansoor Ahmed. Mansoor Ahmed, in his evidence, however, stated that he was not responsible for the fall in production because he had given normal production, but since he was required to work in a team in the shoe lasting Department, the Company was not entitled to pick and choose a worker out of the and not to take action against others. At the same time, in his evidence, Mansoor Ahmed stated that the contents of the chargesheet, giving statistical figures of the pairs produced on July 19,20,21, 1982, are correct.