The main legal point established in the judgment is that the findings of the Enquiry Officer must be logical and not perverse, and the departmental enquiry must be conducted in a fair and proper manner.

JUDGMENT:

1. Heard. Rule. Taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties.

2. By the present Writ Petition filed under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Petition has challenged the Award dated 01.03.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Satara in Reference (IDA) No.53 of 2016. Petitioner is a private limited company. Dispute before the Labour Court, Satara pertains to reference made by the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Satara for adjudication of the termination by order dated 10.04.2013 of Respondent - workman who was employed in the services of the Petitioner – Company. Present Writ Petition challenges the Award partly since the Award holds that the enquiry conducted against the second party is fair, legal and proper, but the findings drawn by the Enquiry Officer are perverse.

3. Such of the relevant facts which are necessary for deciding the present Writ Petition are as under:-

3.1. Petitioner – Company has its registered office at Pune. One of its plant / factory is situated at Atit, District Satara. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing of hermetically sealed compressors at Atit. Petitioner – Company employed about 502 workmen whose terms and conditions are governed by the contract of employment and Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and various settlements executed with the recognized Union i.e. Engineering Kamgar Sanghatana representing the workmen.

3.2. On 01.09.1993, Respondent – workman was appointed as a Welder and worked with the Petitioner – Company for 21 years until he was terminated from services by order dated 10.04.2013. Admittedly, the service record of Respondent – workman is clean and unblemished.

3.3. On 02.06.2012, Respondent – workman working in the second shift completed his shift duty at 12.30 a.m. and thereafter went and sat in the bus bearing number MH-11-T-9343 which had come to the gate for departure. While waiting for the bus to depart, Respondent - workman fell asleep on the seat since it was midnight. When the bus arrived at the gate for departure, the security guard Mr. K.B. More entered inside the bus for checking and noticed a bag lying under the seat on which the Respondent - workman was asleep. The security guard woke up the Respondent and it is Petitioner’s case that Respondent owned up that the bag under the seat belonged to him. The bag contained 3 kilograms of copper material belonging to the Petitioner – Company which according to the Petitioner was attempted to be stolen. It is the Petitioner’s case that Respondent had owned up that the bag was his and accepted that he had stolen the said copper material. This stand of the Petitioner – Company is however refuted by the Respondent – workman.

3.4. Respondent – workman was taken to the security cabin i.e. chowki where he was made to sign on a blank paper. The above misconduct was viewed seriously by the Petitioner – Company under clauses 24(d) and 24 (l) of the Model Standing Orders and charge-sheet cum suspension order dated 07.06.2012 was issued to Respondent – workman. Respondent – workman was directed to submit his written explanation to the charge-sheet. Enquiry was instituted and Enquiry Officer was appointed. Respondent – workman was represented by Mr. Jangam and Mr. Patil, Advocates as his representatives and thereafter enquiry commenced. Respondent – workman informed the Enquiry Officer that the charges stated in the charge-sheet were not accepted by him.

3.5. On behalf of the Petitioner – Company, 3 witnesses were examined before the Enquiry Officer namely Mr. K.B. More, Mr. J.B. Chavan and Mr. S.S. Salunkhe whereas on behalf of Respondent – workman, 2 witnesses were examined before the Enquiry Officer namely Mr. R. V. Shitole and Mr. Sanjay P. Pawar. Witnesses on either side were extensively cross-examined by the opposite party. Enquiry was concluded and report dated 28.02.2013 was forwarded by the Enquiry Officer