M/S. GABRIEL INDIA LIMITED Vs. MAHARASHTRA SHRAMIK SENA, SHRI ANKUSH KRISHNA SHELAR AND SHRI S.A. DWIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revision applications arise from the same order dated 16th March, 2001 in Complaint (ULP) No. 348 of 1995 passed by the VII Labour Court, Mumbai, The Applicant company in Revision Application (ULP) No. 59 of 2001 and its 2 officers were the Respondents and the Opponents Nos. 1 and 2 in Revision Application (ULP) No. 59 of 2001 were the Complainants in the said complaint. The above Opponents Nos. 1 and 2 have filed other revision Application (ULP) No. 78 of 2001 against the Applicant company, (hereinafter the Applicant company, who is Opponent No. 1 in other revision, is referred to as the Respondent company and the Opponents Nos. 1 and 2, who are the Applicants in other revision application, are referred to as the Complainant union and the Complainant employee or the Complainants.) The Complainant approached the Labour Court, Mumbai, in Complaint (ULP) No. 348 of 1995, with the following facts: - -

(2.) THE Respondent company and its 2 officers filed their written statement at Exh. C -5 and thereby resist the said complaint. According to them, the incident between the Complainant employee and other co -employee occurred on 16th December, 1992 outside the canteen of the company was grave and serious and therefore, the Complainant employee was charge sheeted. Then, they conducted the enquiry by following due procedure and the principles of natural Justice. The enquiry officer rightly recorded his findings. The termination letter in question served thereafter also contains the reasons, They have further contended that they could not conduct and complete the enquiry against the co -employee Shri Ivan Lasrado as he went abroad for employment and his where about were not known. Thus, there is no discrimination in taking the action against the him and the Complainant employee. Lastly, they have submitted that if the Complainant employee is reinstated in service, it would affect the discipline in the establishment of the company. So considering all the facts, the Complaint be dismissed.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the trial Judge proceeded further to decide the remaining issues about commission of the alleged unfair labour practices and entitlement of the reliefs. Both parties produced their evidence. On considering the evidence, case laws and other material on record, the trial Judge was pleased to allow the Complaint partly, By the said order, the Respondent company has been directed to reinstate the Complainant employee in its service with 50% back wages and with continuity of service.