VIDYUT METALLIES PVT LTD Vs. DINESHCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, by consent of counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent waives service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal. The Respondent was engaged as an employee and was working as a Helper in the Excise Department. It is alleged by the employer that on 11th August 2005, based on a statement made by one of the employees of the Company involving a theft of the company's property, an investigation was carried out by the police and a search at the residence of the Respondent revealed a substantial amount of material belonging to the company. On this allegation, the Respondent was suspended and a charge sheet was issued on 24th August 2005. A disciplinary enquiry was initiated on an allegation of misconduct. The Respondent was acquitted from a Criminal case which was registered against him by an order of the Judicial Magistrate. The Enquiry Officer held the Respondent guilty of the charges that were enquired into. A copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer together with a notice to show cause came to be served upon the Respondent under a communication dated 31st December 2007. The Respondent submitted his reply on 31st December 2007 denying the allegations. On 8th January 2008, the Respondent instituted a complaint of unfair labour practices before the Labour Court at Thane upon which a hearing was posted to 11th January 2008. On 11th January 2008, the Petitioner appeared before the Labour Court and sought an adjournment on the ground that the notice had just been received. The hearing of the complaint was adjourned to 16th January 2008 on which date the Petitioner filed an affidavit in reply to the application for interim relief. By an order dated 16th January 2008, the Respondent came to be dismissed from the service of the company. The complaint of unfair labour practices came up for hearing before the Labour Court on 21st January 2008. By an order dated 21st January 2008, the Labour Court restrained the Petitioner from acting upon the letter of termination dated 16th January 2008. The Labour Court observed that the Petitioner herein was aware of the challenge by the Respondent to the notice to show cause dated 31st December 2007 and on 11th January 2008, an adjournment was sought to file a reply, which was eventually filed on 16th January 2008. The Labour Court was of the view that the management was predetermined to terminate the services of the Respondent. A stay was sought of the operation of the direction of the Labour Court. The Labour Court declined to stay the interim order. The order of the Labour Court was carried in revision and was confirmed by the Industrial Court on 1st February 2008.

(2.) Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has urged that the interference of the Labour Court in the exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction was not warranted particularly since : (i) There was no finding as to the commission of an unfair labour practice even prima facie at the ad-interim stage; (ii) The issue of the fairness of the enquiry, the question as to whether there was any perversity in the finding and the issue as to whether the punishment was dis-proportionate was yet to be enquired into in the complaint of unfair labour practice; and (iii) An order staying the termination was passed even without the complaint being amended and though the original complaint was only instituted on an apprehension that the services of the workman were likely to be terminated following the notice to show cause.

(3.) On the other hand, it was urged on behalf of the Respondent that the Labour Court was justified in taking the view that though the management was aware of the institution of a complaint of unfair labour practices, it had hastily proceeded to exercise the power of termination. It was urged that an ad-interim order staying termination has been passed and the main complaint is pending. Hence it was submitted that the interference of this Court is not warranted.