1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7115 OF 2011 Arvind Kashinath Chavan & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s M/s.Gharda Chemicals Ltd.& Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7116 OF 2011 Arvind Kashinath Chavan .. Petitioner V/s M/s.Gharda Chemicals Ltd.& Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Jane Cox for the petitioners. Mr.M.V.Joglekar with Mr.Rahul Oak for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 26th September, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Ms.Jone Cox, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Joglekar, learned counsel for Respondents. 2. Rule. Mr.Oak waives service on behalf of the Respondents. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard finally. Since these petitions raise common questions of law and facts, they can be conveniently disposed off by common order. 3. So far as the Writ Petition No.7115/2011 is concerned, the 2 petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 17.06.2011 passed by the learned Judge of the 1st Labour Court, Thane, below Exhibit U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No.63 of 2011 as also the judgment and order dated 01.08.2011 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Thane in Revision Application (ULP) No.60 of 2011. So far as the Writ Petition No.7116 of 2011 is concerned, the petitioner has challenged challenged the judgment and order dated 17.06.2011 passed by the learned Judge of the 1st Labour Court, Thane, below Exhibit U-2 in Complaint (ULP) No.64 of 2011 as also the judgment and order dated 04.08.2011 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Thane in Revision Application (ULP) No.61 of 2011. 4. By these judgments, the Courts below rejected the applications made by the petitioners praying for injunction restraining the Respondents from terminating their services on the basis of show causes notices dated 27.05.2011 issued to them and for directing the Respondents to maintain status quo in respect of the employment of the petitioners as on 27.05.2011. Further prayer was made seeking direction to the Respondents to allow 3 them to resume their duties, provide them work and pay them wages regularly every month and in the alternate, if the Respondents do not utilise their services, to pay them 90% of their last drawn full month’s wages. 5. Ms.Jone Cox submitted that the Labour Court did not record any finding as regards the perversity of the inquiry officers report. She contended that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry are perverse. She also submitted that since the petitioners are office bearers of the union, the Respondents have conducted inquiry with a view to victimizing them. She contended that the Labour Court considered only one aspect viz. whether the principles of natural justice were followed in conducting the inquiry and held that the inquiry was fair and proper. On the contrary the inquiry was conducted in gross violation of the the natural justice. She submitted that the Inquiry Officer was also biased. She submitted that the learned member of the Industrial Court failed to even consider these discrepancies and lacunae. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents supported the impugned orders. He submitted that the Labour 4 Court came to the conclusion that the inquiry conducted against the petitioners was fair and proper and was also by observing the principles of natural justice. The Industrial Court after considering the entire material on record dismissed the revision. He therefore submitted that no interference is called for. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties. The Labour Court held that the principles of natural justice were followed in conducting the inquiry. The Industrial Court in Paragraph No.8, prima-facie recorded that the Inquiry Officer gave opportunity to both sides and there was no procedural illegality or irregularity in the conduct of the inquiry. It was observed that the Labour Court can interfere with the findings only if the findings are perverse i.e.based on no evidence. In the complaint regarding unfair labour practice sufficiency of evidence is beyond the scope of scrutiny of the Court. If the finding is based on some evidence or if the view taken by the Inquiry Officer is a possible view, then the Labour Court can neither interfere with the finding, nor take a different view merely because the other view is possible. 8. The Industrial Court recorded in Paragraph 9 that Mr.Hotkar 5 who was a victim, has stated in detail about the approach by Mali & Jat for changing duties, refusal of Hotkar, call by one of the petitioners on intercom and one of the petitioners Chavan speaking and addressing Hotkar in a filthy language, as also finally the actual assault at about 06.00 p.m. The assault was reported to the General Manager who was also examined. Not only that, the compounder of the dispensary of the Respondent company was also examined. In paragraph No.10 of the judgment, the Industrial Court also considered the subsequent conduct of Hotkar which appeared to be natural and that in the departmental inquiry the findings can be based on the statement of sole witness. The Inquiry Officer considered the statement of Hotkar as also the statement of other witnesses of both sides and the documents produced on record. In Paragraph No.11 it was further observed that prima-facie the Inquiry Officer held that the petitioners had assaulted Hotkar at about 06.00 p.m., and that evidence indicates that the assault went on for about five minutes and that the assault was held to have been proved. In Paragraph No.12 it was held that the employer has right to conduct inquiry and impose punishment commensurating the 6 misconduct. When the inquiry is commenced it must reach to its logical conclusion and directing the employer not to impose punishment, particularly in the absence of any illegality or unfair labour practice, would amount to interference with the rights of the employer under the standing orders. Ideally the misconduct should not go unpunished as it affects the discipline, moral and the conduct of other employees also. 9. In my opinion, the Labour Courts under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 do have power to grant interim relief and in exceptional cases may grant relief of mandatory nature. But, this power has to be exercised with great caution in cases such as where the employer is acting manifestly malafide and for extraneous purpose, otherwise the interference with the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer by the Labour Courts at the interlocutory stage is not warranted. Such interference is liable to impede efficiency of service and to lead to grave consequences. 10.In view of this, I am in complete agreement with the reasons of the Industrial Court. I therefore do not find that the Courts 7 below committed any error of law apparent on the face of the record. It also cannot be said that the impugned orders suffer from any perversity. No case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Both the petitions fail and the same are dismissed. Rule is discharged in both the petitions with no order as to costs. 11.Learned counsel for the petitioners orally seeks stay of this order for a period of three weeks. Learned counsel for the Respondents opposes this prayer. Having regard to the controversy between the parties and so as to enable the petitioners to challenge this order, this order is stayed for a period of three weeks from today. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)