NATIONAL ORGANIC Vs. PANDIT LADAKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NATIONAL Organic Chemicals (RCD)Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the company") issued a show cause notice to pandit Laduka Patil (hereinafter referred to as "the employee") on September 26, 2005 stating the allegations of misconduct against him. To this, a reply was submitted. After considering the reply, the Company decided to hold a departmental enquiry against "the employee" and consequently issued a charge sheet on november 4, 2005. The Enquiry Officer started the enquiry as per the Standing Orders of the company. However, the employee moved an application before the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry in Marathi and also requested that the charge sheet and the Standing order should be furnished to him in the same language. Upon such application, the Enquiry officer directed and explained to the employee that proceedings will be conducted in Marathi as per request, however, it will be recorded in english and it will be explained to him in marathi. In furtherance to the direction issued, translated copy of the charge sheet was provided to the employee. The employee filed complaint (ULP) No. 99 of 2006 before the labour Court, Thane, alleging that non recording the proceedings in Marathi amounts to victimisation and an unfair labour practice. This complaint was opposed by the Company and it denied the averments made in the complaint. An objection was also taken that the complaint is premature. There was no violation of principles of natural justice and the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the Standing orders. The attempt on part of the employee was to delay and prolong the disciplinary proceedings. In reply, it was also averred that the employee had put his signatures and acknowledged the proceedings from time to time. The employee had passed S. S. C. examination and had good understanding of english. Administrative language of the company was English. As part of his duties, the employee also maintains log book in English language and has substantial experience in relation to the Company and its affairs. The employee was well versed in English language.

(2.) THE Labour Court passed an order staying the further proceedings before the enquiry Officer and also restrained the company from terminating the services of the employee without following any legal process. This order allowing the interim prayers dated september 13, 2007 was challenged by the company before the Industrial Court. The industrial Court vide its order dated January 18, 2008 accepted the Revision preferred by the company and the order passed by the Labour court dated September 13, 2007 was set aside. The Industrial Court held as under:

(3.) THE above order of the Industrial Court was impugned by the employee before this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India by filing Writ Petition No. 1239 of 2008 which came up for hearing before the learned single Judge and the learned single judge vide judgment dated February 26, 2008 allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the order of the Industrial Court dated January 18, 2008 and directed that the proceedings will be conducted in Marathi and reduced in writing in Marathi and noticed that the employee had assured the court and given an undertaking that he would give full co-operation and would not ask for unwarranted adjournment so that the enquiry could be completed within the stipulated period.