JUDGMENT -B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---Heard Shri Ghuge, learned Counsel for the petitioner Company and Shri S.S. Pawar, learned Counsel for the respondent employee. Rule. Taken up for final hearing forthwith, by consent.

2.The respondent employee came to be appointed on probation with effect from 1st November, 1986 as an Assembler in the Final Assembly section of the petitioner-company, located in the MIDC area at Waluj. The union had submitted a charter of demand and it appears there was some dispute in that regard between the management and the union and as a result of which the operations of the factory were suspended with effect from 7th November, 1987 followed by a lockout which commenced from 23rd November, 1987. The office and supervisory staff, as well as the managerial staff were reportedly exempted from this lockout.

3.The respondent was one of the employees covered by the lockout and it is alleged that on 10th February, 1988 he went to the house of one Shri Shashidharan Pillai (Stenotypist Tkt. No. 3211-75974) at about 6.00 p.m. along with another co-worker by name Shri R.S. Tawade (Tkt. No. 5211-77270) and D.G. Mulani (Tkt. No. 5132-76680) and some other workmen, who were covered by the lockout. It was alleged that the respondent, along with his colleagues, entered into the house of one Mr. Samuel and caught hold of him on which Mr. Samuel informed that he was not an employee of the petitioner Company and in fact he was the employee of M/s. Lupin Laboratory Ltd. Shri Samuel was left and respondent No. 1 thereafter caught hold of Shri Pillai who was present at the spot. Shri Pillai was assaulted with Bamboo sticks and the earthen pot, which was lying in the garden, was picked up by the respondent No. 1 and thrown on the head of Shri Pillai as a result of which he received bleeding injury on his forehead and was shifted to the hospital. A chargesheet came to be issued against the respondent employee on 5th of March, 1988 alleging that the respondent was guilty of misconduct under Clause 21(xi) and (xiii) of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to petitioner's factory.

4.The respondent employee filed his reply to the chargesheet and denied the charges. Consequently, a domestic enquiry was instituted and the Inquiry Officer completed the inquiry and submitted his findings on 17th December, 1988. While issuing the chargesheet the respondent employee was also put under suspension pending the inquiry. The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the employee were proved and the same findings were accepted by the management. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the charges proved against the respondent, as well his tenure of service, the management issued dismissal order on 25th January, 1989 against the respondent, by way of punishment.

5.The respondent raised a demand of reinstatement with back wages and continuity in service and approached the Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As there was no settlement between the parties, the demand raised by the respondent employee came to be referred for adjudication by the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 25 of 1990. The respondent filed his statement of claim in writing before the Labour Court and the management on its part opposed the reference by filing a written statement. The learned Judge of the Labour Court recorded evidence for giving the findings on the issues framed for consideration which are set out in para 5 of impugned award.

6.The Labour Court held that the inquiry conducted against the respondent employee was in keeping with the principles of natural justice, the findings of the Inquiry Officer were not perverse and the charges levelled against the respondent was duly approved. However, the learned Judge of the Labour Court held that the order of dismissal was not justified and, therefore, by the impugned Award dated 27th May, 1999 directed reinstatement in service without back wages and continu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document