JUDGMENT - SRIKRISHNA B.N., J.:---This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns an Award dated 31st August, 1984, made by the First Labour Court, Bombay, in Reference (IDA) No. 156 of 1980. The reference was made under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The second respondent is an Establishment which publishes newspapers and runs a Department known as Job Department for carrying out its printing work. The petitioner was appointed in the Establishment of the second respondent pursuant to an application made by him in response to an advertisement notifying a vacancy of a Foreman in the Department known as Job Department. The petitioner was served with two charge-sheets dated 1st November, 1977 and 28th November, 1977. In the first charge-sheet, dated 1st November, 1977, it was alleged against him that on 28th October, 1977 he had worked overtime from 5.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. but that he had sent the overtime slip to the Time Office indicating that he had worked from 5.00 p.m. to 1.00 a.m. and that he had also recorded in the overtime muster that he left the establishment at 1.00 a.m., though actually he had left it at 11.00 p.m. A further charge levelled against him by the said charge-sheet was that he was not attending duty in time and that during the period 14th September, 1977 to 29th October, 1977, he had attended duty late on 32 occasions. It was stated in the charge-sheet that the charges, if proved, would constitute misconducts under Standing Orders 27(b) and (f). By the second charge-sheet, dated 28th November, 1977, the details of late attendance on duty during the month of November 1977 were indicated and the petitioner was called upon to give his explanation thereto. The petitioner, by his explanation dated 19th December, 1977, denied the charges alleged against him. With regard to the charge of late coming, he contended that because of domestic problem regarding water supply at his house, he was unable to come at 9.30 a.m. though duty commenced from 9.00 a.m. every day. He had, therefore, requested his superior, Mr. Chandrahas, Assistant Manager, to permit him to report for work at 9.30 a.m. instead of 9.00 a.m., the loss of half an hour to be compensated by the petitioner by taking only lunch recess of half an hour instead of the usual one hour every day. It was this arrangement which enabled him to come late half an hour every day, according to the petitioner. With regard to the charge of making false entries of overtime on 28th October, 1977, the petitioner by his reply dated 4th November, 1977, pointed out that this had been done with the permission of Mr. Chandrahas, Assistant Manager, who had directed that because of the pressing nature of work of Diwali Loksatta to be done, the petitioner should run the offset machine during his day time lunch hour as well as in the night lunch hours and the two periods of lunch recess would be treated as overtime. Therefore, while writing the exit time, he was permitted to add two hours to the actual time of exit.

3. An enquiry was held against the charges alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner's explanation as to the circumstances under which he remained absent half an hour every day under the oral understanding with the Assistant Manager, Chandrahas, was categorically denied by Chandrahas. Chandrahas also denied any such arrangement permitting the petitioner to work the offset machine during the lunch recess and add two hours to the time of his exit, so that it may amount to an overtime of two hours. The fact that the muster roll showed the petitioner as having attended late by half an hour every day during the relevant period, was not disputed by the petitioner. It was also not disputed that on 28th October, 1977, he had entered in the overtime muster, time of exit as 1.00 a.m. though he had finished duty at 11.00 p.m. Similarly it was not disputed that he had shown the same timi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document