-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2104 OF 2004 Bhalchandra Ramchandra Kore ... Petitioner versus M/s. Finolex Cables Ltd. and another ... Respondents Mr. P.P. Chavan, instructed by Mr. V.M. Bhate, for the petitioner. Ms. A.P. Purav for respondent No.1. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE: JULY 21, 2008. P.C. By filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Award Part-II dated 2nd February, 2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, IIIrd Labour Court, Pune by which the claim of the present petitioner is rejected against which this petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner was working as a Dye Maker with the respondent Company. It is the case of the petitioner that he was subjected to charge- sheet on 19th March, 1989 in connection with the incident of altercation with one of his collegues Mr. Bhoware. The workman was also subjected to another charge-sheet on 12th April, 1989 on the ground that he had -2- instigated the workers of the Company to go on an illegal strike on 19th March, 1989. On the basis of the aforesaid two charge-sheets, the workman was subjected to departmental proceedings and an enquiry was held against him. The Enquiry officer after considering the material on record came to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner are proved. On the basis of the same, the Company terminated the services of the petitioner by an order dated 10th June, 1991. The said termination was the subject matter of an industrial dispute. The concerned workman has filed his statement of claim in the reference being Reference (IDA) No. 64 of 1992. The claim of the workman was resisted by the respondent company. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Pune, by his Award Part-I dated 30th April, 1998, held that the enquiry held against the petitioner in respect of the two charge- sheets dated 19th March, 1989 and 12th April, 1989 are proper and valid and accordingly declared Part-I Award. Subsequently, the Labour Court was declared Part-II Award on 2nd February, 2001, whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected holding that the action of the management was justified in terminating the services of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Chavan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the evidence before the Enquiry Officer was not sufficient to constitute misconduct against the petitioner. He submitted that from the evidence on record it cannot be said that the charges, more particularly charge No.1, can be said to be proved against the petitioner. It is submitted that the Labour -3- Court has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence in a proper manner. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Purav, the learned counsel for the respondent company, has submitted that on the basis of material on record, the enquiry officer has given finding of fact in a domestic enquiry. It is submitted that the finding of the enquiry officer is based on the evidence on record and that it cannot be said that there was no evidence before the enquiry officer for coming to the conclusion about proof of alleged misconduct. She has also submitted that the Labour Court has considered this aspect of the matter. The Labour Court has also held that the domestic enquiry was held in a fair manner. It is submitted that this Court should not interfere with the said finding of the Labour Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the record as well as various documents annexed to the petition as also the order of the Labour Court. It is required to be noted that the Award Part-II of the Labour Court was declared on 2nd February, 2001. The petition has been filed after a considerable period. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was sick for some time and that he has tried to justify the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. There is hardly any justifiable reason available for such -4- an inordinate delay. The Labour Court has considered the question about misconduct in detail in paragraph 7 onwards . The Labour Court has also considered the evidence of the witnesses produced by the management before the enquiry officer viz. S/Shri Gaikwad, Bhoware, Arjun Mandala, Giri, Shelar and Prabhu. On the basis of the said evidence, the enquiry officer has found that Mr. Bhoware was subjected to assault for which he made a complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the evidence submitted before the enquiry officer, has tried to make out a case that it is Mr.Bhoware who has tried to assault the present petitioner. It is submitted that Mr. Bhoware gave assault and not the petitioner. The Labour Court has considered this aspect also in paragraph 8 of the order. It was found that at the material time the petitioner was not working as a General Secretary of the Union. It has also been found by the enquiry officer that the second charge, on the basis of the second charge-sheet dated 12th April, 1989, is proved against the petitioner by which it is clear that the petitioner has tried to instigate the other workmen not to report for duty. The enquiry officer impartially conducted the enquiry regarding the aforesaid charge and a clear finding of fact has been recorded in paragraph 13 of the Award of the Labour Court to the effect that the petitioner has not been punished for participating in an illegal strike but he has been punished after the charge is proved regarding instigating the workmen to go on strike and not to resume their duties. The said finding is recorded in view of the fact that the said charge has been established in the domestic enquiry. The -5- learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to point out as to how the said finding is contrary to evidence on record. The learned Judge also considered the question about adequacy of the punishment order and appropriate finding is given in paragraph 15 of the Award. 6. In my view, it cannot be said that the Labour Court has committed any error in rejecting the reference as the misconduct against the workman has been proved in a domestic enquiry in which the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to defend his case. This Court cannot sit in appeal and reappreciate the evidence on record. Even as stated earlier, the second charge levelled against the petitioner is of very serious nature. When the said charge is proved, the Labour Court has considered even the question of punishment having been found proper. This Court cannot interfere with the said finding in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the petition has no merit firstly on the ground that it is filed after a considerable period since the order of the Labour Court and secondly the Labour Court has found that there is no substance in the prayer of the workman for reinstatement with back wages. In the circumstances, the petition is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. -6- P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.