IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3268 OF 2009 Shahapur Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Shahapur ...Petitioner Vs. Rasul Adam Jamadar .. Respondent --- Shri Yogesh D.Dalvi i/b. Shri S.S. Pakale for Petitioner Shri M.S. Topkar for Respondent ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 22ND APRIL, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the Respondent. 2. The Petitioner is a society, registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The Respondent herein is working as a peon in the said society. On 19.6.1997, the Respondent was served a chargesheet and several charges were levelled against him. In response to the said chargesheet, the Respondent gave a reply that he had received the memo dated 19.6.1997. He stated that in respect of the said memo, he wanted to give an explanation that all the points mentioned in the said memo was acceptable to him and he further promised that the said incidents would not be repeated. 3. After the reply was given by the Respondent, the services of the Respondent were terminated and, therefore, he filed a complaint under section 28 r/w Item 1 (a), (b), (d), (f) & (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 vide Complaint (ULP) No.283 of 1997. During pendency of the said complaint, an application for interim relief was filed by the Respondent and interim relief was granted in favour of the Respondent. The Labour Court had directed the Petitioner Society to pay monthly wages at the rate of 50% regularly to the Respondent employee. 4. This order was challenged by the Petitioner Society by filing a petition in this Court. However, this Court by an order dated 28th August, 2001 was pleased to confirm the interim order passed by the Labour Court. Pursuant to the interim order, the Petitioner society paid 50% back wages to the Respondent. Thereafter, the Labour Court after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the charges levelled against the Petitioner were not proved and, therefore, allowed the complaint and directed that the Respondent should be reinstated with full back wages. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner society preferred a revision application under section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 before the Industrial Court, Kolhapur. The Industrial Court had confirmed the finding recorded by the Labour Court and only clarified that the Petitioner should pay the remaining 50% back-wages since 50% back wages had already been paid by the Petitioner during the pendency of the complaint. 6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding recorded by the Industrial Court and the Labour Court, the Petitioner Society has filed this petition. It was firstly submitted that both the Courts below had ignored the fact that the Respondent had admitted the charges which were levelled against him and, therefore, the society was justified in terminating his services. It was further submitted that both the Courts below had erred in holding that the charges levelled against the Respondent did not constitute misconduct. Thirdly it was submitted that both the Courts below had erred in ignoring the material which was brought on record by the Society which shows that the past record of the Respondent was not satisfactory. 7. In my view, the submission made by the Petitioner cannot be accepted. In the memo which was issued to the Petitioner, the following allegations have been made: “1) It is incumbent upon you to perform duties such as cleaning of office filling of drinking water in office before 10.30 a.m. as decided while employing you. 2) Between 11 to 2 p.m. during office work you are supposed to carry such as work assigned to you of passing ledgers from one table to another. 3) During office transaction you are supposed to talk respectfully & in low voice with office staff & consumers. 4) During office time, your friends comes to meet you and your personal phones are received which is in violation of office discipline. 5) It is also noticed that the work given by clerks and officer are not done time to time. 6) It is your duty to respect and give proper service when Chairman and Directors visits to the society. 7) After inquiry it is noticed that the Board-room is always dirty and not cleaned.” 8. The Respondent gave reply to the said memo, in which he has stated that he had received the memo of the Petitioner and that he has given an explanation which reads as under:- “I have received Memo of the above mentioned date. I would like to give my explanation that with reference to the points mentioned in the said Memo are acceptable to me and I am taking responsibility of ensuring that in future such type of incidents will not take place. Yours, Sd/-” 9. The Labour Court on perusal of the memo, came to the conclusion that so far as, the charges 1, 2, 3 were concerned, they were essentially statements of facts. Further, it has observed that the point nos. 1 to 4 mentioned in the chargesheet were very vague and it only mentions the manner in which the work has to be done in the said society. The Labour Court has further observed that point no.5 to 7 were also vague and no particular complaint has been made against the Respondent herein. Similarly, no oral evidence has been led by the Petitioner in support of the said complaint. The Labour Court further observed that the reply which was given, therefore, could not be treated as an admission. The said finding was confirmed by the Industrial Court. 10. In my view, therefore, the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be accepted as both the Labour Court and the Industrial Court have considered the material on record and came to the conclusion that the services of the Respondent were terminated without any enquiry. The chargesheet which was issued is very vague and did not state what was the misconduct committed by the Respondent. It further came to the conclusion that the reply given by the Respondent was not an admission and, therefore, under these circumstances, both the Labour Court and the Industrial Court were of the view that the Petitioner Society was not justified in terminating the services of the Respondent and passed the order of reinstatement with full back wages. I do not see any infirmity in the said orders. 11. In the circumstances, no case is made out to interfere with the orders passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. 12. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. V.M. KANADE J.