SHASHIKANT M SABLE Vs. ADVANI OERLIKON LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30th November, 2007 wherein while examining Standing Order 25(4) of the Model Standing Order, without deciding the legal controversy, the learned Single Judge took the view that no prejudice had been caused to the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the workman") by recording the statement and testimony of the witnesses in English inasmuch as the workman was represented by defence representative who was expected to take care of the interest of the workmen during the enquiry proceedings.

(2.) This view of the learned Single Judge has been challenged in the present appeal primarily on the ground that Standing Order 25(4) is mandatory and its non-compliance in any form shall vitiate the departmental enquiry. The provision being mandatory in nature, the principle of substantial compliance and requirement of proof of prejudice as a condition precedent is not applicable to these provisions.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 Company is engaged in manufacture of electrical and electronic products. The appellant workman was employed with the Company. Because of his poor performance and acts of assault, riotous behaviour and misconduct, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 28th August, 1990. Prior to the order of dismissal, various warning memos had been served upon the workman and even on 2nd March, 1984, he had assaulted one of the fellow workman who had refused to participate in the demonstrations. Three different enquiries were conducted against the workman and he was held guilty of Article of charges levelled in the charge-sheets dated 13th May, 1989 and 10th July, 1989 but was held not guilty of charges levelled in the charge-sheet dated 23rd August, 1989. Vide order dated 28th August, 1990, the workman was discharged from service. He filed a complaint before the Labour Court alleging unfair labour practice by the Company. He also raised an industrial dispute in relation to discharge which was also referred to the Labour Court. Thus,