SHRI Y. RAJAN AND THE INDIAN NATIONAL PRESS GROUP EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. THE INDIAN NATIONAL PRESS (BOMBAY) LTD.,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Applicants were the Complainants in the complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 468 of 1997 filed against the present Opponents before the Xth Labour Court, Mumbai, for declaration of unfair labour practices under item 1(a), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 and the reliefs thereto. The Applicant No. 1 is the employee, the Applicant No. 2 is the union. The Opponent No. 1 is the company and the Opponents No. 2 to 4 are the officials of the Respondent No. 1 company (hereinafter the Applicant No. 1 is referred as the Complainant employee and the Applicant No. 2 is referred to as the Complainant union and the Opponent No. 1 is referred to as the Respondent company and all the Opponents are referred to as the Respondents).

(2.) THE Complainants approached the Labour Court with the following facts. The Complainant employee was working as a Pastor in the Respondent company, who was engaged in the business of printing and publishing two daily newspapers. Besides the above work, the Respondents also undertook the job work of other newspapers, periodicals etc. It is contended that on 13th January 1994, the Complainant employee was served with the chargesheet on the allegation of misconduct under standing order 20(i). It was alleged that on 12th January, 1994 during the first shift in between 8.00 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. he refused to remove the old paste and refused to start the work of paste up on astrolon sheet on 'Mahanagar' newspapers four colour pages, despite of the directions/orders of the superior, i.e. the Respondent No. 4 and thereby committed an Act amounting to misconduct under standing order 20(i). In response to the chargesheet, he filed his explanation. Lastly, he filed his explanation on 27th January 1994 and on the next day he filed a complaint before the industrial Court. Later on, the said complaint came to be withdrawn by him with a permission to file a fresh complaint, in view of the High Court order. Accordingly, this complaint came to be filed. It was further contended that the charges levelled against him were patently false, concocted and the same were levelled in order to victimise him on account of his active participation in the agitation raised by the Complainant Union. It is further contended that the alleged order of the Respondent No. 4 was not lawful and reasonable. Further, the Respondents changed the enquiry officers from time to time and it was not concluded within the statutory and reasonable time. His suspension was also in due haste. It is further contended that the punishment of discharge/dismiss al was also shockingly disproportionate.

(3.) BOTH the parties produced their evidence before the trial Court. On considering the evidence arguments advanced on behalf of both parties, the trial judge was pleased to dismiss the complaint. Being aggrieved by the findings and the final order of the trial judge, the Complainant employee has brought this revision application on the grounds as mentioned in his revision memo.