1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.388 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1761 OF 2002 ... Anant Gangaram Malik ..Appellant v/s. Castrol India Ltd. ..Respondents ... Mr.Abhay Kulkarni for the Appellant. Mr.J.P.Cama, Sr.Counsel i/b N. Mehta & Co. for the Respondents. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.R.KINGAONKAR,JJ DATED: 19th April, 2010 P.C.: 1. By this appeal, the Appellant challenges the the order passed by the learned single Judge of this court in Writ Petition No.1761 of 2002 dated 27th and 29th June, 2005. That writ petition was filed by the Respondent challenging the award dated 11-6-2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal 2 in a Reference. That award was made by the Industrial Tribunal on a reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Reference reads as under: Whether the action of the management of M/s. Castrol India Ltd., in dismissing Mr.Anant Gangaram Malik from service is justified? If not, to what relief is the workmen entitled? 2. The Appellant was working as a First Grade Boiler Attendant with the Respondent. He was served with two charge sheets, one dated 15-9-1992, other dated 1-10-1992. The charge sheet dated 15-9-1992 was corrected subsequently on 24-9-1992. The allegations in the charge sheets were as follows: It was alleged that on 12th September 1992 at about 22.45 hours, the Appellant 3 carried an effigy of M.N. Mehta, Acting Works Manager from the boiler house to the main gate. It is alleged that the Appellant waited till the siren was blown. Thereafter the workman along with several other workmen affixed the effigy on the main gate of the factory. Subject matter of the second charge sheet dated 1-10-1992 was the incident of 22-9-1992. It was alleged that at 8.25 a.m. on the day the workman invited the workers to assemble at the main gate to strike work between 8.25 a.m. to 10 a.m. for the purpose of carrying the effigy of acting works manager prepared from the material belonging to the company to the main gate. He performed the above function with the help of other workmen admist mock display of slogans showing death of the person whose effigy was carried. 4 . Inquiry officer was appointed. The inquiry officer held that both the charges levelled against the Appellant are proved and he was dismissed from service. As observed above, a Reference was made under the Industrial Disputes Act. That Reference was decided by Part-I of the Award dated 11-6-2002. The Industrial Tribunal set aside the inquiry proceedings based on both the charge-sheets. The Industrial Tribunal revoked the order of dismissal. He held that now the employer will be given an opportunity to lead the evidence to prove the misconduct before the Tribunal. Writ Petition was filed in this Court by the Employer challenging that award. The learned single Judge has set aside the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal. However, he remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration in the light of the observations made. 5 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court, one in the case of D.P.Maheshwari v/s. Delhi Admn. And ors. AIR 1984 SC 153 and other in the case Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. v/s. Labour Court, Meerut and others, 1984, I.L.L.J. (SC) 16, submitted that the charges levelled against the Appellant were vague and that the standing order which was mentioned in the charge-sheets do no define the misconduct which is alleged against the Appellant. He also submitted that the inquiry officer was bias, in asmuch as he has not considered the entire evidence on record. The learned Counsel submitted that the learned single Judge failed to see that the workman has specifically stated that he had not understood the charges levelled against him 6 still the learned single Judge has recorded a finding that the workman had fully understood the charges that were levelled against him. The learned Counsel submits that the Industrial Tribunal did not consider all other points that where urged by the Appellant because it found that the inquiry was vitiated for the reasons that were given in the award. The learned Counsel submits that now the learned single Judge has remanded the matter back for consideration of only limited points. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent also. We have perused the record. We find that the misconduct alleged against the Appellant was indulging in conduct which would impair the discipline in the establishment, and indulging in any conduct which will impair 7 discipline in the establishment clearly amounts to misconduct. In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said that the charges levelled against the Appellant were vague in any way. The charges levelled against the Appellant as can be seen from the statement of claim filed before the Tribunal were clearly understood by him. He knew what was the misconduct alleged against him, and in our opinion, therefore, the learned single Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the workman fully understood the allegations that were made against him. In our opinion, the learned single Judge was fully justified in holding that the Industrial Tribunal was not at all justified in revoking the orer of dismissal in Part-I of the Award without actually seeing whether the employer is able to prove the misconduct or not. We find that the reliance placed by the learned Counsel 8 appearing for the Appellant on the judgments of the Supreme Court is not proper. In our opinion, the conduct of any employee which impairs discipline or cretes problem in maintenance of discipline would definitely amount to misconduct. He fixed the effigy of the manager to the main gate of the factory and conducted mock funeral. In our opinion, if this act is proved then definitely it amounts to misconduct within the meaning of the standing order. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has not closed any issue. He has remitted the matter back so that the Industrial Tribunal can scan the evidence again to find out whether the misconduct is proved against the Appellant or not. If the Industrial Tribunal comes to the conclusion that for any reason the findings are perverse or the inquiry is not conducted in accordance with principles of natural 9 justice, it can permit the employer to lead evidence to prove the misconduct. The submission of the learned Counsel that the learned single Judge has closed all the issues raised by the Appellant is not correct. The learned single Judge has remitted the proceedings back for denovo hearing in the lights of the observations made by the learned single Judge. We find that the order passed by the learned single Judge apart from being a proper order is a just order calling for no interference. Appeal is, therefore, disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.)