JUDGMENT - H.H. KANTHARIA, J.:---As common question of facts and law are involved in these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, they are heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment.

2. Petitioner K. Ramchandra Nair in Petition No. 1115 of 1983 was in the employment of the first respondent, the Bombay Gymkhana Limited, from 22nd June, 1964. Petitioner Abdul Q. Bakali was in the employment of the said Gymkhana from 31st May, 1971. At the relevant time both of them were working as Clerks.

3. The relevant facts giving rise to these writ petitions are as under:

It appears that every year on the 20th of December there always used to be an annual day celebrations in the Gymkhana. On that day, as a matter of practice, some ex-gratia payments were made to the workmen of the Gymkhana. In the year 1977, some dispute arose between all the workmen on one hand and the management of the Gymkhana on the other on the issue of usual ex-gratia payment. On 19th December, 1977 all the workmen went on en masse strike. The said strike continued till 20th February, 1978. On 20th February, 1978, all the workmen resumed duty unconditionally. At that time five out of all the workmen were told that their services were terminated and they were no longer required in the employment of the Gymkhana. The present petitioners are the two out of those five workmen. It is the case of the Gymkhana that during the strike period on 16th January, 1978 the services of the petitioners were terminated along with three others by way of discharge simpliciter. The petitioners complained to the Government Labour Officer about their wrongful discharge. The matters were admitted in conciliation proceedings having failed, references were made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Administration), Bombay, under section 10(1)(c) read with section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act') in the matter of demands of the petitioners for their reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of services to the Sixth Labour Court, Bombay, prescribed over by the second respondent.

4. At the hearing of Reference (IDA) No. 394 of 1971 in case of K. Ramchandra Nair and Reference (IDA) No. 395 in case of abdul Q. Bakali, parties filed their pleadings and adduced both oral as well as documentary evidence. On appreciation of the evidence adduced before him, the second respondent-Labour Judge by his separate judgments and orders dated 21st August, 1982 rejected the demands of the petitioners for reinstatement and full back wages with continuity of services and thus dismissed the references. The said awards made by the learned Labour Judge presiding over the Sixth Labour Court, Bombay, are impugned in these petitions by the petitioners workmen.

5. Now, admittedly no domestic enquiry had preceded the prejudicial orders of discharge passed against the petitioners. In that case, the employer-Gymkhana was entitled to adduce evidence before the Labour Court to justify their action of discharge simpliciter taken against the petitioners. That exactly was done in this case. The point that arises for my consideration, therefore, is to find out whether the Gymkhana adduced sufficient and satisfactory evidence before the Labour Court to justify their action of passing orders of discharge simpliciter against the petitioners and further whether the awards made by the learned Labour Judge are sustainable in law.

6. The case of the Gymkhana, as can be seen from their written statement, is that the services of the present petitioners were terminated by way of simple discharge on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice. They contended that the service record of the petitioners was not satisfactory. According to them, the petitioners were warned for misbehaving in a rude manner with the Head Clerk of the Gymkhana by name R. Suresh. They were also severely warned for such misconduct although they deserved severe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document