ORAL JUDGMENT :- By this writ petition, the petitioner - employee has challenged the concurrent orders delivered by the Labour Court and Industrial Court. The Labour Court has on 20-8-1991 dismissed his ULP Complaint challenging the termination after departmental enquiry. The said order of Labour Court was challenged by him by filing Revision under section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Industrial Court and Industrial Court has dismissed that revision on 28-9-1992.

2. The petitioner was given a memo on 4-9-1980 in relation to incidents which transpired on that date and his explanation was called by the General Manager of respondents. The petitioner states that thereafter statement of one Shri K.G. Shende was recorded in relation to said incident. He submitted his reply to this memo dated 4-9-1980 on 7-9-1980 and thereafter on 25-9-1980, a communication informing him that Enquiry Officer has been appointed and enquiry proceedings would be conducted against him was served upon him. The said communication also contained a statement that if charge-sheet was required by him, it would also be sent to him. On the basis of this, departmental enquiry was conducted against him and ultimately by order dated 1-7-1981 issued by the partner of respondent No. 1- Company, he was dismissed from service with effect from 2-7-1981. He questioned that dismissal by filing ULP Complaint No. 162 of 1981 before First Labour Court. The complaint was filed under Item 1 of Schedule IV. The Labour Court found enquiry held against the petitioner to be not fair and valid and hence it permitted the respondents to lead evidence to prove misconduct before it. Accordingly, the respondents led evidence before the Labour Court. They examined K.G. Shende and one Raju @ Rajendra Purohit in support of their charge. The Labour Court has appreciated this evidence and found that misconduct was proved. It, therefore, by its order mentioned above, dismissed the complaint. This dismissal was then challenged by the petitioner by filing Revision under section 44 of the Act before the Industrial Court which came to be registered as Revision ULP No. 328 of 1991 and Industrial Court dismissed it on 28-9-1992.

3. I have heard Shri B. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M. G. Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate with Shri R. M. Bhangde, Advocate for the respondents.

4. Shri Khan, learned counsel has contended that the provisions of Model Standing Orders framed under provisions of Bombay Industrial Relations Act are applicable to the industry of respondent No. 1 and there was no charge-sheet issued to the petitioner at any point of time. He contends that though Labour Court has held that misconduct is proved, as there was no definite charge-sheet served upon the petitioner, he was not in a position to understand the gravity of misconduct and therefore the nature of punishment which it would attract. He contends that this has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner while prosecuting the defence in departmental enquiry and thereafter before the Labour Court. It is his next argument that in any case on the basis of evidence adduced on record; the charges are not established. He invites attention to finding recorded by the Industrial Court that managing partner of respondent saw petitioner sleeping and he contends that this person i.e. Managing Partner has not at all been examined either before the Labour Court or in departmental enquiry. He contends that in these circumstances, the finding of Industrial Court is perverse and unsustainable. He thereafter pleads that evidence of Shri Shende also could not have been relied upon because Shri Shende was Helper of the petitioner and because of statement given by him against the petitioner, the respondents have favoured him by giving him two promotions shortly. He argues that thus, Shri Shende was not an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document