SYLVESTER AND CO Vs. THEIR WORKMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, petitioner seeks to challenge the Award dated 1-9-1989 being Part-I Award as also Part-II Award dated 1-2-1991 in Reference CGIT-2/55 of 1987.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows :-

(3.) PETITIONER is a partnership firm carrying on business of clearing and forwarding, exporters and importers, shipping and also as commission agents. R. G. Gaikwad - workman (Respondent No. 1) was employed as dock clerk on and from 1-10-1978. Respondent No. 1 was required to go to Docks in connection with the work of clearing and forwarding. He was appointed as a dock clerk. His services were terminated with effect from July 1, 1986. He, thereafter, approached the Union which requested the Company to reinstate the workman but the Company refused to do so and, therefore, the Union raised an industrial dispute under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal by way of Reference CGIT-2/55 of 1987. Before the Tribunal, respondent No. 1 contended that the Company had terminated his services for acts of misconduct without holding a domestic inquiry and in the circumstances the termination was illegal and bad in law. The workman contended that the termination was an abrupt termination. The workman contended that vague allegations were made against him vide letter dated 27-6-1986 and no domestic inquiry was held and no opportunity was given to the 1st respondent to defend himself before taking steps to punish him with the order of termination of his services. Respondent No. 1 worked for eight years. His services have been terminated on the ground of loss of confidence. The workman contended before the Tribunal that no specific charges were levelled against him and no domestic inquiry of any kind was held against him and in the circumstances the workman contended that the termination of his services with effect from July 1, 1986 was illegal and bad in law. On the other hand, the petitioner - Company filed its Written Statement alleging that respondent No. 1 was indulging in activities which could cause loss to the company. According to the Written Statement, respondent No. 1 had committed acts of fraud, cheating and insubordination and despite ample opportunities being given to the 1st respondent, he did not improve. On the contrary, he became arrogant and negligent which caused financial losses to the Company and which also caused loss of reputation to the Company. According to the petitioner, large number of instances of misconduct and negligence on the part of respondent No. 1 compelled the petitioner to discharge his services by way of simple discharge. In the Written Statement, petitioner alleged that respondent No. 1 was guilty of misbehaviour as enumerated in the reports submitted by the Officers to the Company and no useful purpose would have been served by holding a domestic inquiry as such inquiry would not have been conducive to the functioning of the Company. According to the Written Statement, the termination was not by way of punishment and no stigma was attached to the worker but since the Company had lost confidence in the 1st respondent, the Company terminated his services by way of simple discharge. According to the Written Statement, no domestic inquiry was necessary nor was such a domestic inquiry conducive to the proper and effective functioning of the Company. According to the Written Statement, the conduct of respondent No. 1 was far from satisfactory and when the Company found that he was not improved, both with regard to his style of work as well as his conduct, the Company had no option to terminate his services by way of simple discharge. In the Written Statement, the Company pleaded that it was relying upon the warning letters and also evidence showing the misconduct of the workman in discharge of his duties as a dock clerk and that the Company was ready and willing to establish the misconduct/deriliction in duties/fraud and misappropriation and also misuse of the funds by respondent No. 1. According to the Company, therefore, the services of the workman came to be terminated not by way of punishment but by way of simple discharge.