The management is justified in not holding an enquiry into allegations of misconduct against an employee if the holding of such an enquiry would invite undesirable social consequences.

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. :---This is a petition challenging two orders-one by the Labour Court and the other by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, directing the reinstatement of respondent No. 2 into the school run by the petitioner-society.

2. Shortly stated the facts are as under :---

The petitioner is a Society and runs a school in an area known as Jaripatka. This is a co-educational school where 40% of the students are girl-students. There are also the lady-teachers in the school. The school has earned a name in the educational circle, inasmuch as invariably every year the students of this school find their names in the merit-list. There has also been an example where the girl-students of this school have topped in the Board Examinations in whole State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 1 was working with this school as a watchman, having joined his service on 1-8-1978. It was his duty to attend the school and also keep a watch at night on the school building so that it remains safe. While working as such, a letter came to be received by the Principal of the school, who is also petitioner No. 2 to this petition. The letter stated that nefarious activities were going on in the school, like prostitution and gambling etc. In fact, there were about two or three letters which the said Principal received. Some were anonymous, some were sent purportedly by the social organisation and some by individual persons. The reputation of the school was, thus, at stake because of what was going on in the school at night-time. The Principal as also the Managing Committee felt apprehensive about this, and it is also a plea of the employer that the Principal once visited the school at night only to find some unsocial elements fleeing from the spot. All the activities obviously could not have been done unless respondent No. 1, who was a watchman, was a party to same, or at least, without his connivance. It is also a case pleaded by the employer/society that when the Principal visited the respondent/Chowkidar was present and he fell on the feet of the Principal begging his pardon and assured him that such events would not be repeated. All this took place in the month of December, 1981. The Managing Committee of the school took a very serious note of these letters which were sent by the organisation called Karanti Dal as also by the individuals, and decided to send a show-cause-notice to the respondent/employee. They contemplated an action under Rule 28(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which permitted them to dismiss the employee without holding any Departmental Enquiry. They, on the basis of that power, dispensed with the enquiry, as holding of the enquiry would have invited undesirable social consequences, and holding that the explanation of the respondent/employee was not satisfactory, they proceeded to dismiss him. However, nothing was stated in the dismissal order.

2. The order of dismissal came to be challenged by the respondent/employee by way of a complaint under the provisions of section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU PULP Act). It was alleged by the employee in his complaint that unfair labour practices were committed by the school management. His contention was that though he was in continuous employment and had become permanent, he could not have been dismissed without holding any Departmental Enquiry. His further contention was that, though he was not expected to work both at day and night, he was asked to so work and his working hours exceeded fifty hours per week. He further contended that he had approached Praja Sattak Shikshan Sanstha, Maharashtra Rajya, Nagpur, complaining about the illegal heavy work-load given to him, which irked the management. He also contended that the misconduct alleged in the letter dated 11-2-1981 was nothing bu