AKSHAY H. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was working as a Shift Chemist in the respondent - Company since 17/11/1981. The said designation was subsequently changed as Starch Technician. The respondent served him with a notice dated 12/06/1996 calling upon him to showcause that his service should not be terminated. According to the petitioner, before he could reply to the said notice the respondent - Company terminated his service by giving a telegraphic intimation. He, therefore, raised industrial dispute which ultimately came to be referred to the Labour Court by way of reference being Reference (L. C. A.) No. 1551/1996. In the statement of claim filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court it was averred by him that he was working with the respondent - Company for the last 15 years as Starch Technician and he was discharging his duties sincerely and faithfully. Despite that, he was given showcause notice dated 1 2/06/1996 and before he could give reply his service was terminated telegraphically. He further averred that since the termination was illegal and without following the due procedure prescribed in the law, the same was required to be set aside. 1. 1. The said reference came to be resisted by the respondent - Company by filing written statement at Exh. 6. According to the respondent the averments made in the statement of claim by the petitioner were not true. It also raised preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the reference on the ground that the petitioner was not falling within the purview of the provisions of Section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, he was not reverted back. The Labour Court therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain this reference. It further contended that the petitioner was given showcause notice on account of misconduct committed by him. It was further stated that on account of negligence of three workmen working under the petitioner in the Marco department of the respondent had remained closed till 4. 15 in the morning and thereafter at 11. 00 a. m. the next day it could not be restarted. Thus, according to the respondent because of the carelessness shown by the petitioner while supervising the work of his subordinates, there was no production during that period and the Company had suffered sizeable monetary loss. According to the respondent for that reason, showcause notice dated 12/06/1996 was served upon him calling for his explanation. However, on 1 2/06/1997, the petitioner had submitted an application to the respondent seeking one weeks time to render his explanation which was granted. It was further contended by the respondent that the petitioner was discharging duty as a responsible person and he was required to assign the work to the workmen working under him, to arrange the pattern of work and to scrutinize the quality of the product etc. It was further averred by the respondent that the manufacturing unit of the Company is a continuous process wherein starch and its incidental items are being manufactured and for that purpose to keep vigilance over the working staff surprise checking is being done. During one of such checkings made on 11/06/1996 the petitioner who was working in the third shift was found sleeping in his department. According to the respondent since the petitioner was a responsible officer, it was a very serious matter that he was sleeping in the department at the time of working hours and that amounted to committing breach of the service conditions. Because of this misconduct he was relieved from the service with effect from 1 2/06/1997. According to the respondent to safeguard the petitioners interest to the fact that repetition is not harness and in future his career may not be adversely affected and he did not loose his legal and lawful rights, he was simply relieved from the service with immediate effect. On these averments the respondent submitted that the reference be dismissed. During the course of the proceedings before the Labo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document