MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER KOLHAPUR Vs. MAHANAGAR PALIKA KARMACHARI SANGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Corporation is aggrieved by the judgment and order rendered by the Industrial Court at Kolhapur on 10-9-1996 thereby allowing Complaint (ULP) No. 36/1991. By the said Judgment and order, the Industrial Court directed to pay arrears of wages and other benefits to all the five Complainants for the period from 3-3-1989 to 16-10-1989.

(2.) IT appears that there was a strike called by the employees of the corporation from 20-1-1989 to 29-1-1989 and during this period of strike on 24-1-1989 at about 11. 15p. m. at Venus Corner, Near Usha Theatre within the limits of Shahupuri Area police station, the police constable by name Shri Sanjay Dalvi came out of the Indraprastha hotel after his dinner and while he was walking towards the Shahupuri police station, he had noted a group of four persons trying to open the drainage and, therefore, when he proceeded towards the spot, three of them ran away and the 4th person who had climbed down into the drainage i. e. Sunil Najaruddin Shaikh alias Pandat was caught. He was taken to the police station and he disclosed the names of other 3 persons who ran away as well as the names of two other persons who had abeted the crime. He recorded an FIR and, therefore, all the six accused were tried in Regular Criminal Case No. 164/1989 for the offence punishable under section 432 read with sections 34 and 109 of indian Penal Code. On registration of the criminal case, all of them were placed under suspension by the Commissioner of the petitioner Corporation by his order dated 25-4-1989. However, all the accused were acquitted by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur by his order dated 29-9-1989. The Commissioner by his order dated 14-10-1989 recalled the suspension orders and the issue of departmental enquiry as well as the salary for the suspension period was left open to be decided later. On 10-12-1990 the Commissioner passed another order dropping the enquiry proceedings and treating the accused No. 6 as on duty while denying the said benefit to other five accused. It was under these circumstances the five employees who were treated as under suspension approached the industrial Court through their union and filed Complaint (ULP) No. 36/1991 and alleged that the Corporation and the Municipal Commissioner are guilty of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.

(3.) THE present petitioners had filed the written statement before the industrial Court and opposed the complaint. They sought to claim that the case of accused No. 1 who was President of the Union could not be compared with the other accused persons and, therefore, his suspension was found to be erroneous. This reasoning is unsustainable in as much as the learned Chief Judicial magistrate has not made any distinction in his acquittal order and has clearly held that there was no evidence apart from the oral depositions of the Complainant against all the accused and, therefore, they were acquitted. The Industrial Court, therefore, held that all the accused persons were required to be treated at par and the Commissioner ought to have treated all of them as suspended or all of them to be entitled for payment for the period of suspension. Accused No. 6 who was an alleged abettor should not have been treated differently than the other five accused when all of them were placed under suspension as they were accused in criminal Case No. 164/1989. The Industrial Court, therefore, held that the complainant union was successful in proving that the petitioners had engaged in acts of unfair labour practice under Items 5 and Item 9 of the Schedule IV of the act when the Commissioner made discrimination while exercising his powers under section 56 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, ,949 to close the departmental enquiry proceedings and while deciding the issue of suspension of the accused persons.