SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Bom) 447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
B.N. Srikrishna, J.
Murlidhar Raghoji Savant.... Petitioner.
Versus
General Manager, Nather Platt(I) Ltd. and another... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 2714 of 1986, decided on 17-9-1991.
Advocates appeared :
S.M. Dharap, for the petitioner.
P.K. Role and A.M. Vernekar, for respondent No. 1.

Headnote:Section 15-Model standing orders-Order 24 (1) Misconduct- Standing orders require employer to define with sufficient precision the terms of employment, particularly these pertaining to definition of misconduct.

       Held-Nothing could be said to be a misconduct unless it had been so defined by employer. Not permissible for employer to declare an act as misconduct ex post facto.

JUDGMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.:---This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugn an Order dated 27th March, 1986 made by the First Labour Court, Pune, in Complaint (ULP/LCP) No. 40 of 1984, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act").

2. The first respondent is a company carrying on business in the engineering industry and owns a factory at Pune. The petitioner was employed in the said factory. The factory, at the material time, employed about 600 workmen. The workmen resorted to a tool-down strike from 18th May, 1983 to 22nd June, 1983, and thereafter a total strike from 26th June, 1983, to 2nd July, 1963. During this period, a meeting was held on 29th May, 1983, near Mehta Hospital, Chinchwad, Pune, which was addressed by the activists of the union sponsoring the strike. During the said meeting, one Moses Gabriel Francis, a senior workman of the Factory, voiced his doubts as to the advisability of carrying on the strike. He urged upon the workmen to reconsider the continuation of the strike, which was inflicting hardship on the workmen. Moses also called a meeting of the dissenting workmen on 3rd June, 1983, at another venue, whereat there were discussions as to ascertaining the possibility of holding discussions with the first respondent's management for resumption of work in the factory. The section of the workmen, led by their militant trade union leaders, perhaps, did not approve of this line of thinking of the other section. On 5th June, 1983, at about 1 a.m., the petitioner, alongwith K.R. Shinde, C.B. Bidkar, D.T. Jadhav and a large number of other workmen, numbering about 70 to 80, went to the residence of the said Moses, located in a colony popularly known as Rustom Colony at a distance of 4 to 8 Kms. from the factory of the first respondent. Some of the workmen in the crowd shouted out to Moses, demanding that he open the door of his house. Moses, naturally, frightened for dear life, refused to oblige. Some of the workmen in the crowd then started abusing him and pelted stones at the entrance door of his house. The front and rear doors of the house of Moses were then broken open by banging large stones thereupon, and the crowd of workmen rushed into the house. K.R. Shinde, D.T. Jadhav, C.B. Bidkar and the petitioner, accompanied by a few more workmen, who were prominently conspicuous, assaulted Moses, the members of his family consisting of his wife, has son and his daughter in-law with hands and sticks. They also damaged the property inside his house, bodily lifted him, carried him outside the house and threw him down on the ground. Thereafter, he was severely beaten up with a cycle chain by the petitioner, causing him serious injuries and profuse bleeding. While Moses was being beaten, someone from the crowd of the workmen shouted at him as to why he was attempting to break the strike and come in the way of the livelihood of 600 workmen. This incident led to charge-sheet being served upon the workmen who were suspected to be involved in the said incident of assault. We are concerned only with the cases of the petitioner and one C.B. Bidkar, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1312 of 1989.

3. The petitioner was served with two charge-sheets, one dated 18th May, 1983, and the other dated 27th June, 1983. In the first charge-sheet dated 18th May 1983, the charge levelled against the petitioner was that, on 14th May, 1983, one workmen, S.D. Bhosale, was found taking out of the factory two packets of chiwda, which was available for sale to workmen at subsidised rates in the factory canteen, contrary to specific instructions notified by earlier notices in that regard. The said Bhosale, who was detained during a search at the canteen, refused to surrender the chiwda packets. The Assistant Jamadar, who was on duty, advised him that he was not permitted to take the chiwda packets out






























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top