MARUTI BHANUDAS KAMBLE Vs. BAJAJ AUTO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in both these petitions are challenging the judgment and order passed by the Presiding Officer, 3rd Labour Court, Pune, in Reference (IDA) No. 351/1986. Parties in both these petitions are also the same, therefore, both the petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. Brief facts are as under :

(2.) Petitioner - Maruti Bhanudas Kamble in Writ Petition No. 6348/97 was appointed as a Helper in the year 1974 in Bajaj Auto Limited (hereinafter for the sake of convenience Maruti Bhanudas Kamble will be referred to as "the workman" and Bajaj Auto Limited will be referred as "the company"). The services of the workman were terminated by the company on 24-10-1978. The order of termination reads as under :

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he was on the medical leave with effect from 29-9-1978 to 1-10-1978 and he had furnished ESI Doctor's certificate. According to the workman, he was arrested by the police on 2nd October, 1978 for the offence punishable under sections 380 of the Indian Penal Code for committing theft outside the factory premises and he was in police custody upto 13-10-1978. According to the workman when he went to the factory on 14-10-1978 to resume his duties, he was not allowed to do so. According to him, on 16th October, 1978, he submitted his explanation for absence, however, his services were terminated by letter dated 24-10-1978 by the respondents. The workman raised a reference before the Labour Court at Pune, however, it was rejected by judgment and award dated 25-10-1985. He, therefore, filed writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 2703/1986 which was allowed by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Labour Court permitting him to amend the date of termination. A statement of claim thereafter was filed by the workman. In the written statement, it was contended by the company that the workman has deserted his employment and therefore, the company has removed his name from the muster roll. It was stated that though the workman presented himself on 16-10-1978, he did not produce sufficient evidence to show that he was arrested by the police. It was also contended that the workman had remained absent without leave on earlier occasions also and he was warned for his irregularities. It was also contended that the behaviour of the workman was rude and arrogant towards his superior officers. It was contended that he was also suspended for 2 days in 1975 by way of punishment and he was in the habit of leaving the place of his duties without giving prior intimation or taking permission from the superior officers. It was contented that therefore, the workman had committed misconduct under Clause 24(f) of the Standing Orders and it was, therefore, not necessary to hold inquiry since the action was taken by the company on undisputed facts. The workman examined himself in addition to the evidence which he had given earlier before the Labour Court before the matter was remanded back by this Court. The company relied upon the evidence which was recorded prior to the remission and did not lead any evidence after remission. The company examined Shri Mohanlal Bhajanlal Sharma who was the Personal Manager at the relevant time. The Labour Court by judgment and award dated 4-1-1997 partly allowed the award. The Labour Court had framed two issues viz.: