LUTHFUDDIN TAMIZODDIN SHAIKH Vs. ASIATIC OXYGEN AND ACETYLENE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by a workman challenging the orders passed by an authority under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Maharashtra Act of 1971") and Judge, Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 317 of 1988 on 8.5.1990, as confirmed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Revision (ULP) No. 79 of 1990 on 4.1.1994; whereby dismissal of the petitioner by the respondent was upheld.

(2.) At the outset, certain undisputed facts in this case may be stated as follows.

(3.) Learned advocate for the respondent pointed out that earlier conduct of the petitioner and the fact that matter had reached police station and police had to take proceedings by way of Chapter Case against the petitioner and others, showed that the things had reached flash point and subsequent misconduct on 24.4.1988 was a very serious incident in which a real threat of beating was given to superiors by the petitioner. The petitioner also insulted the superior and it was a clear case of indiscipline and gross misconduct which could not be tolerated and it cannot be said that the punishment is disproportionate. Learned advocate for the respondent also argued that the Labour Court and the Industrial Court have considered all the points which are raised before this Court and have held concurrently that the petitioner behaved in such a way that there was no way other than to hold enquiry proceed exparte. It is also pointed out that the Labour Court has held that Inquiry Officer was not prejudiced. In fact that is the concurrent finding of both the Courts below. It is also argued that in this case the dismissal was prior to the decision in the case of Union of India vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan [(1991) 1 SCC 588] and as such the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others vs. B.Karunakar and others [(1993) 4 SCC 727] does not apply. He also argued that the inquiry was held to be legal and proper by both the Courts below.