HINDUSTAN COMPUTERS LTD Vs. NATTY ROSE PESSO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions impugn the judgment and order rendered by the Labour Court on 16/4/1995 thereby allowing Complaint (ULP) No.334 of 1987 partly and confirmed by the Industrial Court at Mumbai in Revision Application (ULP) No.57 of 1995 which came to be dismissed. The first petition has been filed by the employer i.e. M/s. Hindustan Computer Ltd. whereas the second petition has been filed by the employee.

(2.) It is the case of the employee that she was appointed as "Personal Assistant" with effect from 29/1/1987 and on probation period of one year. However, on 22/9/1987 her services came to be terminated by the company and, therefore, on or about 22/12/1987 she filed Complaint (ULP) No.334 of 1987 before the 3rd Labour Court at Mumbai under Item 1 of Schedule IV read with Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 ("the Act" for short). The said complaint was allowed by directing reinstatement but without backwages by the Labour Court. The order of denial of backwages was not challenged by the employee by filing a revision application under Section 44 of the Act and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Labour Court in the impugned order had received finality on the point of non-compliance of Section 25F of the I.D. Act and denial of backwages so far as she was concerned. The Industrial Court agreed with the findings recorded by the Labour Court and held that there was no case made out to cause interference under Section 44 of the Act.

(3.) As per the employee the order of termination was punitive and it was not preceded by a departmental enquiry. She stated that on 6th August 1987 while she was on duty her personal leather bag was found missing from her drawer during the lunch hour and the said bag was containing important documents and personal belongings. She could not trace it on making enquiries with her colleagues and, therefore, she submitted a written complaint to respondent no.2. As there was no response from him, she submitted a complaint to the Marketing Director at Delhi who also did not respond to the complaint and, therefore, on 13/8/1987 she filed a police complaint regarding the theft of her bag from the office premises and during working hours. The police had undertaken investigations and had resorted to summoning some of the employees. One more letter was addressed by her on 24/8/1987 to the Marking Director regarding the incident of theft and seeking his intervention and, therefore, the respondent no.2 started acting vindictively. On 29/8/2007 when she reported for duty, the respondent no.2 refused to allow her to work and instead she was called in his cabin and the keys of the cabin were demanded from her. She was also asked to sign on some blank papers and submit her resignation. The petitioner-employee did not do any of such things and, addressed a letter dated 29/8/1987 to the Marketing Director at Delhi informing him about the incident. The petitioner addressed a letter dated 1st September 1987 to the respondent no.2 requesting him to refrain himself from illegal acts and to allow her to work. On 3rd September 1987 she was issued with a show cause notice alleging that on 25th August 1987 at about 10 a.m., while in the office, she had assaulted one Mr.Bharat at 10 a.m. and the said act amounted to misconduct of serious nature calling for disciplinary action. The letter further alleged that on 27th August 1987 she had remained absent unauthorizedly. She submitted her reply on 4th September 1987 and finally on 22nd September 1987 she was served with the order of termination.