Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.
Pest Contral (India) Pvt. Ltd..... Petitioners.
Versus
Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. Employees All India Union
and others ....Respodents.
Writ Petition No. 3695 of 1988, decided on 26-2-1993.
Advocates appeared :
K.K. Singhvi, with Shekhar Naphade, i/b Bagla Dandekar Co., for the petitioners.
K.P.V. Menon with Ms. Pushpa Menon, for respondents.
The jurisdiction under Section 44 is very limited. It can be exercised only in the circumstances set out in the decisions referred to above. The revision authority cannot act like an appellate authority and take upon itself the task of re-appreciating the entire evidence to find out whether the decision of the Lab6ur Court was correct or not. It is well settled legal proposition that even if on reappreciation of the evidence such authority comes to a conclusion which is different from the one arrived at by the Labour Court, it can not disturb the finding of the Court below in exercise of its limited supervisory jurisdiction.
Schedule IV, Item 1-Scope of.
It must not be forgotten that for the purpose of Clause (d) of Item I, it is not enough to challenge the dismissal or discharge but it is further necessary to establish that reasons for such dismissal or discharge were "patently false". The word "patently" is significant as otherwise the word "false" would have been enough. The use of the word "false" clearly goes to show that the legislature contemplated that in order to hold that the discharge or dismissal of an employee amounted to unfair labour practice, such discharge or dismissal should be for "patently false reasons".
Thus, the importance of the word "patently" cannot be undermined nor can this word be ignored. Even if the reason is found to be false, it may not be enough. The falsehood must be patent then only it will amount to unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 1. In the instant case, there is nothing to show that the reason given was even false. Thus even on that count, the finding of the Industrial Court that the dismissal of the workman amounted to unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 1 of Schedule IV does not stand to reason. There is no material whatsoever to justify the charge of unfair labour practice as alleged by the union.
2. The petitioner company had dismissed one of its employee Jagjeet Singh, who was working as a driver and mechanic. The facts giving rise to his dismissal from service, briefly stated, are as follows:
The aforesaid employee Jagjeet Singh was also working as President of the Union of the employees of the company since April, 1981. On 15-3-1983, a notice was fixed by him on the notice-board of the company calling for the General Body Meeting of the union complaining about high handed-ness of the management in various matters. In the said notice it was also mentioned that Mr. Manohar Shanbhag, Finance Manager of the company had misbehaved with the woman employee in the office and though this fact was reported to the management, the management refused to take action.
As the petitioner company felt that the conduct of the employee in putting a notice on the notice-board making such "baseless and unfounded" allegations against Mr. Shanbhag Finance Manager of the company amounted to misconduct under the Model (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959, a notice was issued to the employee (Mr. Jagjeet Singh) framing charge against him under Clause 24(1) of the Standing Orders. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 23-5-1983. In the said charge-sheet it was stated :
"It has been reported against you as under :You are making a false propaganda that Mr. M.N. Shanbhag, Finance Manager has misbehaved with female employee in the office. In fact you have alleged in para 2 of your Notice dated 10-3-1983 which is signed by you as under :
The same Mr. Manohar Shanbhag misbehaved with a women employee of P.C.I. Mr. V.G. Nabar Personal Manager was witness to this ugly incident.
You have exhibited the above Notice in the premises of our H.O. Fort without the permission of Management. The above allegation is baseless and unfounded. You have defamed Mr. Shanbhag in the Company.
The above acts on your part are misconducts punishable under Model Standing Orders as applicable to you, framed under Bombay Industrial Employment (S.O.) Rules 1950. You are thereof charged as under :
S.O. "24(1) Commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment;
You are called upon to explain within 7 days why disciplinary action should not be taken against you, failing which it would be presumed that you have no explanation and the Management will proceed accordingly."
3. By the said Notice, the employee was also put under suspension pending enquiry in the matter. The domestic enquiry took place. The Enquiry Officer found the charge established. On the basis of the said report, the management dismissed Jagjeet Singh from service.
4. On the receipt of the order of dismissal, a complaint was filed at Labour Court, Bombay by the Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. Employees of All India Union, which is respondent No. 1 herein, alleging unfair labour practice under Item 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act, 1971. The complaint was investigated by the Labour Court. The Labour Court also recorded evidence of the parties and on consideration of all the materials and evidence on record, it came to the conclusion that the complainant union failed to prove unfair labour practice alleged by it. It was also held that on the contrary, the charge had been established by the respondents and they have
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
