BURHANPUR TAPTI MILLS LTD. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against two orders under the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), one passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (respondent 2) on 30 June 1958 whereby Ganpatdas (respondent 3) was directed to be reinstated and another passed by the State Industrial Court (respondent 1) on 12 March 1959 by which the petitioner's revision against the order of reinstatement was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner is a public limited company which carries on the business of spinning, weaving and processing of cloth in a textile mill situate at Burhanpur. The petitioner had employed the respondent 3 as a weaver. On 18 November 1957, a charge sheet ( Annexure A) was served on the petitioner accusing him of a misconduct within the meaning of the relevant Standing Order 25 (t), that is, of abusing and assaulting his official superior on the same day. In accordance with Standing Order 26 (2), he was also called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed for the said misconduct. As required, he submitted on 20 November 1957 his written explanation wherein he requested that the presence of the Government Labour Officer be secured on the date of the enquiry. On 28 November 1957, evidence was recorded in the presence of the respondent 3, who however neither cross -examined the witnesses nor led any evidence in defence for the ostensible reason that the Labour Officer was not present. Since the charge was found duty established, the respondent 3 was dismissed from service.

(3.) IN the enquiry made by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (who exercised the powers of the Labour Commissioner) under section 16 (3) of the Act, he found that the respondent 3 was provoked by the foul tongue of the Weaving Master, that it was not conclusively proved that the respondent 3 assaulted his superior officials and that therefore dismissal was a punishment too harsh in the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the respondent 3 was directed to be reinstated without back wages but also without any break in service.