JUDGMENT -R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petitioner has challenged in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the concurrent findings recorded by the Labour Court, Pune and the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Pune. The facts which gave rise to the present dispute are as follows:

2.The petitioner was working as a permanent Drawer in the Drawing-in Department of the respondent Mills. He had put in about 20 years service in the Mills. He was served with a show cause notice dated 26-12-1978, the gist of which is that the petitioner had not given the usual production as decided by the company. While others in his shift were giving 8500 ends production, it was alleged that the petitioner was deliberately giving low production by doing work slowly. The said show cause notice also contained his past misconduct and that inspite of legal action against him he had not improved. The show cause notice contained a chart of production given by him from 4-12-1978 to 22-12-1978. The petitioner submitted his written explanation by his letter dated 1-1-1979 denying charge of low production given in the statement. In the written explanation he also made a counter allegation that by issuing such show cause notice of wilfully giving low production the respondent was pressurising him. He also further threatened in the said written explanation that their act of issuance of such show cause notice during the pendency of his application BIR/LCP No. 32 of 1978 would attract criminal proceedings. He finally requested the management to withdraw the show cause notice. After receipt of the aforesaid written explanation the respondent company held a domestic enquiry wherein statements of three witnesses and the petitioner were recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner refused to cross examine the company's witnesses and also refused to sign the proceedings. To a question put by the Enquiry Officer he agreed that the statement on the back of the show cause notice was showing his production. He however, said that he could not say why the production was less. He also expressed that he was not able to say why and how his co-workers gave production of 8500 ends. His written explanation and also his statement before the Enquiry Officer are far from satisfactory. It appears that the Union which was assisting him had in fact not helped him properly. It appears that the petitioner had approached the union for help in this regard but the union did not do justice to him. In the enquiry he was not represented by the union representative nor he was guided to cross examine the company's witnesses. If the union had prepared his written explanation with some responsibility that would have perhaps helped him a lot in this matter. A written explanation of a workman to the charge sheet is the foundation of his case. Unfortunately however more often the written explanations drafted are cryptic and are far from satisfactory. Very often irrelevant and immaterial statements are made in the written explanation and uncalled for allegations are in the written explanations. In the present case also the written explanation is very cryptic and there is no specific reply to the charge at all. The threat of criminal proceedings was also not called for. Before the Enquiry Officer the petitioner was not able to meet the charge of low production. The witnesses examined on behalf of the company have stated that the Drawer working in the Drawing-in-Department had to give 8500 ends during eight hours and they did so accordingly. The witnesses further have given evidence that the other Drawers were giving production to the tune of 8200 to 8300 ends. One of the witnesses had further to say that the standard production in the Drawing-in-Department was 8500 ends and that the petitioner did not give the same production inspite of telling him repeatedly. The petitioner's case in the enquiry throughout has been that he was not able to say why he had given less production.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document