KARAMCHAND THAPAR Vs. MEMBER INDUSDTRIAL COURT MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of facts arise for determination in these two writ petitions, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3738/2002 is the original complainant and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2871/2002 is his employer. The employee was engaged as a Peon by the employer on 1.6.1991. He was then assigned the duties of Dispatch Clerk w.e.f. 4.11.1981. During his service, a charge sheet was issued against the employee on 19.5.1983 levelling 7 charges against the employee. It was the case of the employer that the employee had misappropriated an amount of Rs.280/- and was also guilty of dereliction of duty. It was alleged that the employee was taking money from the customers on false pretext and had not returned the same to them. While working as Dispatch Clerk, according to the employer, the employee was not sending the letters with the postage to the customers and almost 200 letters were not sent to the clients of the company by the employee. It was then alleged that the employee remained absent from duty without leave on many occasions. The employee accepted the charges and pleaded guilty. However, the management decided to hold an enquiry against the employee. The Enquiry Officer, was appointed and the witnesses of the employer were examined. The employee however, refused to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. After conducting the enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted the report on 9.9.1983. The Enquiry Officer held that all the charges leveled against the employee were proved. The employee was ultimately dismissed from service by an order dated 15.9.1983.

(3.) SHRI Marpakwar, the learned counsel for the employee supported the order passed by both the courts, so far they directed reinstatement of the employee and submitted that in fact the employee ought to have been paid the back wages also. The learned counsel for the employee submitted that the Industrial Court has given elaborate reasons for holding that the punishment was disproportionate to the act of misconduct committed by the employee. The learned counsel for the employee took this court through paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 of the judgment passed by the Industrial Court to submit that for sustainable reasons the Industrial Court has held that the punishment of dismissal imposed by the employer was disproportionate to the act of misconduct. The learned counsel for the employee sought for the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the employer.