1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5190 OF 2004 Shri S.R. Pawar ....... Petitioner. V/s M/s. Carbon Corporation Limited and another. ...... Respondents. ---- Mr. Yogendra Pendse for the petitioner. ---- CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 13th April, 2009. P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Petitioner is challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Nashik dated 26/6/2002. Petitioner was employed in the Company since 30/09/1977 and the charge-sheet was issued against him. An inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer held that the charges against the petitioner were proved. Before the Labour Court, termination of the petitioner was upheld. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was the protected employee being a member of the Union and that no permission had been obtained as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further submitted that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are 2 perverse. The learned Counsel invited my attention to the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the observations made by the Labour Court in the award about the said findings. It is submitted that no evidence was led to show that the petitioner was responsible for damaging the machine and that the inference had been drawn that the petitioner might have been responsible for the damage caused to the said machine. It is submitted that, on the contrary, there was evidence on record to show that the petitioner had improved the production on the said machine. 4. The submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be accepted. The allegations which were made against the present petitioner in charge-sheet are as under:- “ 24(a) wilful insubordination or disobedience, whether or not in combination with another, of any lawful and reasonable order of superior. (c) wilful slowing down in performance of work or abetment or instigation thereof. (d) theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employer's business or property or the theft of property of another workman within the premises of the establishment. 3 (h) habitual breach of any Standing Order or any law applicable to the establishment or any rules made thereunder. (k) drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the establishment. (l) Commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment. (m) habitual neglect of work, or gross or habitual negligence. (q) Wilful damage to work in process or to any property of the establishment.” One of the allegations was that the petitioner resorted to adopt go- slow tactics, resulting in reduction in production. It was brought on record before the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner was asked to work on Bombay 80-I machine by his superior officer. It was brought on record that the petitioner had deliberately and purposely broken the Steady Rest Chain of the said machine on more than three occasions. Evidence was led to show that, in fact, the petitioner was very well conversant with the functioning of the said machine and during a particular period, he had operated the machine and had maintained the production and, thereafter, in spite of repeated requests made to the petitioner, level of production was not increased. The Labour 4 Court, therefore, found that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are not perverse and endorsed the said findings. In my view, there is no substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. In view of the clear evidence on record, the Labour Court has drawn an inference that the particular chain was broken by the concerned workman i.e the petitioner herein. So far as the second submission is concerned, the Labour Court has observed that no evidence was led by the Petitioner to the effect that he was collecting funds for the Union and in the absence of any material on record the Labour Court observed that Inquiry Officer had not erred in not considering the said submission of the petitioner herein. 5. In my view, findings recorded by the Labour Court are not perverse and there is no reason to interfere with the said award which is passed by the Labour Court. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)