PEFCO FOUNDRY Vs. BABAN ANANDA DHOTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Company has impugned in the present petition, the award passed by the II Labour Court, Pune on August 28, 1991 directing it to reinstate the workman, Shri Baban Ananda Dhotre in the post of Driver and to pay him 50% of back-wages from the date of termination i. e. October 3, 1984 upto November, 1987 and from July 1, 1989 till reinstatement. The Labour Court had given the aforesaid Part II award after holding by its Part I award that the enquiry into the charge-sheets dated September 15, 1983 and January 14, 1984 were valid, legal and proper and that the findings were also proper except for one incident. The Labour Court had given its finding in its Part II award that the punishment of dismissal of the workman was shockingly disproportionate and deserves to be quashed and set aside, It is an admitted fact that the workman was employed as a driver from February 3, 1979 and was confirmed on July 4, 1979. He was assigned the work of driving the car of the Company's Executive Director, Shri J. P. Gupta. He was also required to render his services towards the family members of Shri Gupta.

(2.) BY a dismissal order dated September 30, 1984, the petitioner dismissed the workman from employment after holding a domestic enquiry for alleged acts of misconduct levelled by it by its charge-sheets dated September 12, 1983 and January 14, 1984. The workman raised an industrial dispute challenging the propriety and legality of the aforesaid dismissal order. The State Government referred the said industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court under Section 10 (1) read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the Labour Court, the workman filed his statement of claim, challenging the propriety and legality of the dismissal order and praying for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. It was alleged by him that the domestic enquiry held by the petitioner Company was in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the petitioner Company had dismissed him with ulterior motives, mala fide and had indulged in unfair labour practice. It was also contended by him that the extreme punishment of dismissal was disproportionate and it amounted to victimisation. He had also contended that the Enquiry Officer had not complied with the principles of natural justice and that his findings were baseless and perverse. According to him he had not committed any acts of misconduct as alleged against him. The petitioner Company filed its written statement and denied the various allegations and averments made by the respondent. It further denied that it had not complied with the principles of natural justice and that it had dismissed the respondent mala fide or had victimised him. The Company also contended that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the workman was given full opportunity of defending himself in the enquiry. Both the parties had adduced their respective evidence, oral and documentary, before the Labour Court, both on the point of fairness and legality of the enquiry and also on the point of punishment. As stated earlier by me, the Labour Court has held by its Part I award that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the findings were also not perverse. The Labour Court had interfered with the punishment of dismissal while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act.

(3.) IT is an admitted position that the workman was assigned to drive the car of Shri Gupta, the Executive Director of the Company. It is also an admitted position that the relations between Shri Gupta and the workman were strained and were not at all cordial, as they should be between the owner and the driver of the vehicle. According to me the relations between the driver and the owner whose car he is driving are distinct and there cannot be even little friction leading to mutual ill-will. The relations must be smooth and straight between both of them. The driver must not have a grudge against the owner or his family members, whom he is rendering his services nor the owner of the vehicle or his family members should have any kind of grudge or ill-will against the driver. It is like husband and wife. Both must have mutual trust and confidence in each other. According to me, a workman working in the shop floor of the factory and a driver driving his owner's car, both are to be treated differently and they cannot be equated with each other, and therefore, the test to be applied in an industrial dispute, where driver is concerned, would be little different.