BALMUKUND Vs. INDUSTRIAL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Balmukund, was employed as a Security Guard in the Heavy Electricals Ltd. , at Bhopal. He was served with a charge-sheet, dated 6. 7. 1966, the relevant extract of which is as under: You are hereby charged with the following acts : On 1. 7. 1966 at about 2-30 hrs. Security Guard Narbada Prasad Belt No. 201, while coming for duty, was suddenly manhandled from behind by you and your brother Babulal and one other, near primary School, Govindpura, D-Sector simply because of nonpayment of interest on Rs. 50 loaned to him by you which was already repaid to you, and was heavily beaten by you with blows causing injury on right elbow and back, etc. On 1. 7. 1966 you were supposed to be on duty from 00 to 08 hrs. but you remained absent from your duty without any information. From your past record as per list attached it is evident that you are in habit of remaining absent from your duty without prior intimation, permission and sanctioned leave. Your above acts amount to riotous disorderly behaviour in Heavy Electricals Townships and habitual absence from duty wtihout leave/without sufficient cause which constitute misconduct in terms of Standing Orders 50 (12) and (5 ).

(2.) CLAUSES (5) and (12) of the Standing Order No. 50, which alone are relevant, are as under: (5) Habitual late attendance and wilful or habitual absence from duty without leave or without sufficient cause. (12) Gambling, drunkenness, fighting, riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour in the Factory Premises and or H. E. Township or any act subversive of discipline.

(3.) IN a domestic enquiry held by the Management, both the aforesaid alleged acts of misconduct were found proved and on that basis the petitioner was dismissed from service by an Order No. Pers/sety/1/15/2505, passed by the Personnel Manager, Heavy Electricals (India) Limited, dated 28th March, 1967 (Annexure-B ). The petitioner then moved the Labour Court under Section 31 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, challenging his dismissal from service. The petitioner also alleged that the domestic enquiry was invalid. It was also contended by the petitioner that the allegations contained in the charge-sheet do not constitute misconduct under Clause (12) of the Standing Order No. 50. All these contentions raised by the petitioner were rejected and accordingly his application was dismissed by the Labour Court.