S R BHOSALE Vs. FINOLEX CABLES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner workman has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the legality and validity of the award Part II dated June 10, 1991 passed by the First Labour Court at Pune in reference No. IDA No. 371 of 1986. The petitioner was employed as an Assistant Operator vide an appointment letter dated February 10, 1979. According to the petitioner, he was sincere and diligent and had always discharged his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and had unblemished service record. The petitioner himself has claimed that as a result of his work and clean record he was granted annual increment from 1980 to 1985 and that within a very short span he was promoted to the grade of Senior Operator (E Grade ). I have specifically mentioned these facts, averred by the petitioner himself to show that he was correctly and properly treated by the employer Company and there was nothing against him as such, though subsequently he has alleged that being a union activist, he has been penalised by way of dismissal from employment for which he raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government for adjudication to the First Labour Court, Pune.

(2.) THE dispute appears to have arisen when on October 27, 1985, he refused to do certain work on a certain machine in accordance with lawful and reasonable orders of his superiors. For this act of his refusal to do the work on a particular machine, he was issued a show cause notice dated October 29, 1985 and was called upon to submit his explanation. The said show cause notice was followed by a formal chargesheet dated November 8, 1985, wherein the very same charge was levelled against him, He was also accused of using insulting language with his supervisor. It was also alleged against him that on October 28, 1985, though he was on sanctioned leave, he had entered the factory premises at about 4 p. m. without prior permission and he had held a meeting of workers of power cable division in power cable shed. For all these charges, he was chargesheeted and was kept under suspension with immediate effect during pendency of the domestic enquiry. He was also served with a third memo called a formal charge-sheet and notice of enquiry dated November 18, 1985, which contained the same charges and he was called upon to submit his written explanation and also to attend the enquiry before the Enquiry Officer.

(3.) THE petitioner submitted his written explanation to the charges levelled against him by his letter dated June 31, 1985, denying the charges levelled against him and explaining his own position.