WP/1809/1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1809 OF 1997 Kishor Govardhan Kasat ... Petitioner V/s. Century Enka Ltd., Pune & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Kiran S. Bapat for the Petitioner. Mr. A.P. Purav for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 7 TH DECEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. The orders challenged in this Writ Petition have been passed by the Labour Court, Pune in Complaint (ULP) No.124 of 1991 on 13th December, 1994 and 22nd August, 1995 and by the Industrial Court, Pune in Revision Application (ULP) No. 145 of 1995 on 25th April, 1996. The complaint filed by the petitioner invoking Items 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (for short “the MRTU & PULP Act”), was dismissed and the Industrial Court, Pune has confirmed that order. 2. The petitioner was employed as a Semi Skilled Operator in Grade “C” with the respondent No.1-Company from 1st April, 1982. A notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to show cause in respect of certain acts of misconduct committed by him including negligence, disobedience of lawful orders of his superiors and willfully slowing down the work. The petitioner was charge sheeted WP/1809/1997 2 for these alleged acts of misconduct on 1st June, 1990. Immediately thereafter, on 4th December, 1990 and 7th January, 1991, two show cause notices were issued to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the charge sheets and show cause notices were issued against him only to harass him and to ensure that he was found guilty of one or the other act of misconduct. Departmental enquiries were held against the petitioner after which he was dismissed from service on 21st March, 1991. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were not furnished to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was unable to submit any representation in respect of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 3. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred Complaint (ULP) No.124 of 1991 alleging that the respondent No.1-Company had committed unfair labour practices under Items 1(a), (b), (d) (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The petitioner contended that he had been dismissed from service after holding enquiries, which were nothing but a farce. He was not permitted to cross examine some witnesses and, therefore, was not afforded an adequate opportunity to defend himself at the enquiries. He also complained that the principles of natural justice had been violated while conducting the enquiries. The report of the Enquiry Officer was also not furnished to him. The petitioner further contended that the charges levelled against him were trumped up and false and according to him the respondent No.1-Company had taken action against him only in order to victimize him. WP/1809/1997 3 4. The respondent No.1-Company filed its written statement denying all the allegations contained in the complaint. It also pleaded that the past record of the petitioner was not unblemished and, therefore, he had been dismissed after holding domestic enquiries and considering his past record. 5. The Labour Court by its order dated 13th December, 1994 held that the three enquiries conducted against the petitioner were fair and proper in as much as procedurally all the requisite formalities had been followed. By an order dated 22nd August, 1995, the Labour Court concluded that the dismissal order passed against the petitioner was valid as the charges levelled against him had been proved. The Labour Court observed that the complainant, i.e. the petitioner herein, had not led any positive evidence in rebuttal of the charges levelled against him. The Labour Court further held that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was not disproportionate and, therefore, dismissed the complaint. 6. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the Industrial Court by filing Revision Application (ULP) No.145 of 1995. The Revision Application has been dismissed by the Industrial Court by concluding that the Labour Court had drawn proper inferences and, therefore, there was no need to interfere with the order impugned in the Revision Application. WP/1809/1997 4 7. A perusal of the order dated 22nd August, 1995 indicates that the Labour Court has not considered whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer in each of the enquiries held against the petitioner were perverse, as contended by the petitioner. In the earlier order passed by the Labour Court, it has concluded that the procedure followed at the enquiries was fair and proper. However, it was necessary for the Labour Court to consider while passing the second order whether the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in each of these enquiries held against the petitioner were drawn on the basis of the evidence on record. There is no discussion at all about the evidence led in each enquiry. The Industrial Court by confirming the decision of the Labour Court has also not considered the findings recorded in each enquiry. Moreover, both the Courts below have not considered the fact that the petitioner was not furnished with the copy of the enquiry report due to which he could not comment on the findings reached by the Enquiry Officer before the order of dismissal was passed against him. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in each of the enquiries have not been discussed, instead the Courts below have treated all the three enquiries together and have arrived at their conclusions. This has resulted in a miscarriage of justice which needs to be rectified under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 8. In these circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed. 9. The Complaint (ULP) No.124 of 1991 is remanded to the Labour Court, Pune to decide the issue regarding the perversity of the findings of the Enquiry WP/1809/1997 5 Officer and whether the petitioner-workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages and consequential benefits upto the date when the order is passed, 10. The parties are permitted to lead evidence only on the issue of back-wages. 11. Since the dismissal is of the year 1991, the Labour Court, Pune is directed to dispose of the Complaint (ULP) No.124 of 1991 by 31st December, 2011. 12. Rule made absolute accordingly.