JUDGMENT :

(Through Video Conferencing):

1. Vide order dated 19.04.1999 this Court had issued Rule. Taken up for final disposal.

2. This petition challenges the order of the Labour Court dated 25.10.1996 on the additional issue framed as regards the status of Respondent as workman, the order dated 08.08.1997 passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No.6 of 1997 against the finding on additional issue, the final judgment and order dated 07.10.1998 passed in Complaint ULP No.214 of 1993, and order dated 18.12.1998 passed in Revision Application (ULP) No.516 of 1998. By the impugned judgment and order, the Labour Court allowed the complaint, which was upheld by the Industrial Court in revision.

3. The facts of the case are as under:

Maharashtra Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd, (for short “the Federation”) is a Co-operative Society appointed by the Government of Maharashtra as the Chief Agent under Section 42 of the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing and Marketing) Act, 1971 for implementation of the cotton monopoly procurement scheme. The Respondent was an employee of the Federation and at the relevant time, was serving as Centre In-charge in Sahakari Ginning Factory at Bodwad. It is claimed that there were complaints regarding the performance and discharge of the duties of the respondent at the Bodwad collection centre and preliminary inquiry was held. After considering the report of the preliminary inquiry, a decision was taken to initiate departmental inquiry against the respondent. The chargesheet containing the substance of charges along with the list of the documents and witnesses was served upon the respondent alleging misconducts constituting violation of the service rules. The charges imputed were that the respondent had purchased cotton of other villages which were not associated with the Bodwad collection centre, scoring / obliteration on the folder forms of the cotton cultivators, grading of inferior quality cotton with higher grade resulting in payment of higher rate thereby causing loss of Rs.35,32,671.63 to the Federation and absenteeism without prior permission.

An Inquiry Officer came to be appointed and as per the convenience of the parties the inquiry was conducted at Nagpur, Nashik and Bodwad. Although the respondent was permitted to be represented through the employees of the federation or office bearers of the Union, the respondent chose to defend the charges himself.

During the departmental inquiry, the Federation examined ten witnesses. The Respondent did not examine any witness in his defence. Inquiry Report was submitted on 28.06.1992, which concluded that all the charges were proved against the delinquent employee. Based on the Inquiry Report, show cause notice was issued to the respondent seeking his reply against the inquiry report and the proposed punishment, to which explanation was submitted by the respondent on 10.10.1992. After considering the material on record, by order dated 16/17.06.1993, the Respondent’s services came to be terminated.

Complaint (ULP) No. 214 of 1993 came to be instituted by the respondent under Item I (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (for short “MRTU and PULP Act) seeking to set aside the order of dismissal and for reinstatement. In the reply filed by the petitioner, an objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court as the salary of the respondent exceeded Rs.3,000/- per month and as such it was contended that the Respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act of 1947”). The relief sought was also opposed on the ground that proper inquiry had been conducted and charges were proved.

In view of the objection taken, additional issue came to