: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.865 OF 2010 Hindalco Industries Ltd. .. Petitioner V/s. Anil P. Samant .. Respondent Mr. M.V. Joglekar for the Petitioner. Mr. Indrajeet Kulkarni for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 7 TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the Award Part I dated 23rd September, 2009 passed by the 3rd Labour Court, Thane, in Reference (IDA) No.16 of 2008. 3. The Labour Court has concluded that the enquiry held against the respondent-workman was not legal and proper. The reason for the Labour Court to draw this inference is that according to the Labour Court, firstly, the charge sheet issued to the respondent-workman was not in Marathi and, : 2 : secondly, that there was no evidence on record to indicate that it was the duty of the delinquent workman to perform the work of preparing the doctor blade, which he had allegedly refused to do. 4. The respondent-workman was charge sheeted on 9th April, 2007. He has admitted in his evidence led before the Labour Court that he received the charge sheet and that he had replied to the same. 5. I have perused the charge sheet as well as reply given by the respondent-workman to the same and I found that there is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent-workman had sought a translation of the charge sheet. The very fact that he replied to the charge sheet would indicate that he understood the contents of the charge sheet. Therefore the first reason for the Labour Court to held that the enquiry against the respondent- workman was not conducted properly is without merit. : 3 : 6. As submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondent-workman, the second reason for inferring that the enquiry was not held properly was that the proceedings were not recorded in Marathi. The Labour Court has considered the contention and has found that as per clause 25(4) of the Certified Standing Orders, the enquiry was held in Marathi and the proceedings were recorded in English. The Labour Court has, in fact, concluded that there was no breach of the Standing Orders. The Labour Court has also held that there was no illegality caused by the petitioner in not providing certain documents to the respondent-workman during the enquiry. This in my opinion, therefore, shows that the enquiry was conducted fairly. 7. As regards the perversity of the findings, the Labour Court has held that there was no alcohol test conducted and there was no evidence of drunkenness. In fact, the Enquiry Officer himself has held that there was no evidence of drunkenness on the part of the respondent-workman. Therefore, the only charge which remained against the : 4 : respondent-workman was refusal to prepare the doctor blade. There is evidence of the respondent- workman’s witness before the Enquiry Officer who has stated that if the operator was not available to prepare the doctor blade, a junior operator was expected to prepare the same. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent- workman, has submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the senior operator was not present on that day or that the respondent-workman, who admittedly was the junior operator, was required to prepare the doctor blade on that day. Mr. Kulkarni was unable to point out what was the nature of work which the respondent-workman was performing except that mentioned by the petitioner. In fact, the respondent-workman’s witness one Shri. D.R. Sawant has stated thus : “Examination in chief of Mr. D.R. Sawant, D.W.-1 by Mr. Prabhakar Sawant as under : ............................ Mr. Choudhary, Sr. Operator of C-7 machine met me in the canteen. He expressed his inability to run C-7 machine as doctor blade was not available. I : 5 : enquired with him about the standard practice as to what they do in such case, when doctor blade is not available. He replied that there is a operator who prepares doctor blade on machine and provide it to us to run the machine. In case when the said operator is not available, Junior Operator of C-7 machine provides the said doctor blade. In between the machine C-7 remains idle till the Blade is made available. I permitted him to keep the machine idle till he gets doctor blade. Accordingly I also informed the Supervisor to make doctor blade available to C-7 machine as per the standard practice, as the operator was ready to run the said machine after getting the doctor blade. He was not operating the machine because he was not supplied with doctor blade.” 8. This witness has admitted that the respondent- workman was the Junior Operator on the C-7 machine on the day the doctor blade was not available. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the findings of the Labour Court are incorrect. There is no perversity in the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, the Award Part I dated 23rd September, 2009, passed by the 3rd Labour Court, Thane, in Reference (IDA) No.16 of 2008, is set aside. The enquiry has been conducted fairly and : 6 : properly and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are not perverse. 9. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. 10. The Reference (IDA) No.16 of 2008 is remanded for further hearing.