JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. This Petition takes exception to a judgment and order passed by the learned Member Industrial Court, Satara in Revision Application (ULP) No. 4 of 2020, dated 11th June, 2021, whereby the Revision Application preferred by the petitioner-employer came to be dismissed upholding the judgment and award (part-1) dated 27th January, 2020, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court in complaint (IDA) No.30 of 2018, preferred by the respondent-workman holding that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the Departmental Enquiry instituted against the respondent were perverse.

3. Background facts necessary for determination of this Petition can be summarized as under:-

(a) The petitioner is an engineering company. Respondent was appointed as a trainee operator with the petitioner on 13th November, 2009. Respondent was confirmed in service in the year 2011. Respondent was the president of the trade union. On 18th April, 2017, the respondent allegedly entered into the Shop Floor of the factory premises without any authority, whilst he was not on duty. Respondent behaved in an indecent and disorderly manner. Respondent made the other workmen to stop the work on the pretext that a casual worker was employed to work in polymer lining cell. Respondent allegedly threatened Mr. Adsul, the production supervisor, with dire consequences, once the later came out of the factory premises.

(b) Upon a report being made, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 2nd May, 2017. Respondent gave explanation thereto on 4th May, 2017. A charge-sheet was served on the respondent on 11th May, 2017, alleging misconduct under Clauses 24-K, 24-L, 24-Q and 24-R of the Standing Orders applicable to the respondent. A written explanation thereto was submitted by respondent on 18th May, 2017.

4. During the course of Departmental Enquiry, the management examined two witnesses and respondent examined himself and three witnesses in his defence. After appraisal of the evidence and material, the Inquiry Officer returned the finding of guilt against the respondent and it was held that the respondent had committed misconduct within the meaning of Clauses 24-K, 24-L, 24-Q and 24-R of the Standing Order, vide report dated 26th December, 2017.

5. Respondent had initially lodged a complaint being complaint (ULP) 10 of 2018. In the said complaint, the petitioner stated that the respondent was dismissed from service. Contesting the fact that the dismissal order was served on the respondent and alleging that the respondent was prevented from resuming duty, the respondent preferred complaint (ULP) No.30 of 2018, alleging Unfair Labour Practices under Items No.1 (a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (“the Act, 1971”).

6. The Labour Court after appraisal of the rival contentions and submissions canvassed across the bar, decided the preliminary issues by judgment and award (part-1) dated 27th January, 2020. It was held that the domestic enquiry was legal, fair and proper. However, the findings drawn by the Inquiry Officer were held to be perverse.

7. Being aggrieved the petitioner-employer invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under Section 44 of the Act, 1971. The revisional Court was not persuaded to interfere with the findings recorded by the Labour Court. It was held, inter alia, that the petitioner had not examined independent witnesses though available and Inquiry Officer had not properly appraised the evidence and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Labour Court did not warrant any interference in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction.

8. Being further aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

9. I have heard Mr. Bapat, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the respondent