H P PATHADE Vs. N A KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-employee against the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Thane on 23rd December, 1983, answering the reference in the negative and holding that the dismissal of the petitioner-employee is perfectly legal, valid and justified. It appears to be an admitted position that the petitioner was employed on 10th of September 1976 as a production operator and was getting Rs. 275 per month as wages. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner was a member of the factory committed of the Union. It then appears that some time in the month of June 1978 the employees started taking recourse to go-stow to press their demands. On 14th June 1978 the petitioner threatened the foreman in a rough tone and also participated in go-slow activity. As a result of this he came to be chargesheeted for his wilful insubordination or disobedience, whether or not in combination with another of any lawful and reasonable orders of the superior, willfully slowing down in the performance of the work or abetment or instigation thereof, disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the establishment, commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment. A chargesheet on the basis of these charges was issued on 13th June 1978. Then came a supplementary chargesheet on the same day, whereby it was alleged that the petitioner refused to accept the chargesheet, order or other communication served in accordance with the standing orders. It also appears to be an admitted position that no reply was filed by the petitioner-employee to this chargesheet, since it was his case that after negotiations a settlement was arrived at between the parties. The respondent-employer chose not to proceed against any other employee, though they had also participated in the go-slow activity. He has given to understand that no action would be taken against him and the inquiry instituted will be dropped. In view of this representation he did not file any reply to the chargesheet, nor he participated in the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer ultimately on the basis of the evidence adduced before him came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved, and therefore, the petitioner came to be dismissed from service with effect from 7th of August 1978.

(2.) Being aggrieved by this dismissal order the union, representing the petitioner sought for a reference under Section 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Tribunal initially came to the conclusion that though enough opportunity was given, the petitioner-employee did not participate in the inquiry. It also came to the conclusion that the inquiry held was perfectly legal and valid. Then on the basis of the inquiry papers, it also came to the conclusion that the punishment imposed is neither shocking nor disproportionate and could have been imposed under standing orders. As a result of this reference made came to be dismissed. As already observed it is this order of the Industrial Tribunal, which is challenged in the present petition.

(3.) Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before us that from the bare reading of the chargesheet it is quite clear that no charge was ever levelled against the employee for instigating go-slow. Similarly situated employees were treated differently and there is an apparent discrimination between the persons similarly circumstanced. Inquiry proceeded against the petitioner only and the reason is obvious, that he was an active member of the union. Therefore, it is a case of victimisation and unfair labour practice. It is also contended by him that in any case this is not a fit case, wherein the order of dismissal could have been issued in view of the previous good service record of the petitioner. As a matter of fact while confirming the petitioner an additional increment was given to him in view of his efficient performance. The learned Member of the Tribunal has not applied the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act to the facts of the present case and thereby misdirected itself and hence the whole order is vitiated. It is also contended by him that the inquiry held was illegal and was also against the principles of natural justice. In support of his contention Shri Kulkarni has placed reliance upon the following decision, (1) R.M. Parmar v. Gujarat Electricity Board, 1983 (1) L.L.J. 261.