Bajaj Auto Consumers Co-op. Society Ltd. Pune vs Uttam Dnyanoba Tajane and Others

D.K. Deshmukh, J.—By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26-9-1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune in Revision Application (ULP) No. 124 of 1994. That revision was also filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28-10-1994 passed by the Labour Court, Pune in Complaint (ULP) No. 70 of 1993. That complaint was filed under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 by the respondent No. 1 challenging his dismissal from service by the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 was dismissed from service as punishment after holding departmental inquiry against him for misconduct. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner was assaulting a co-worker at the place of work.

Both the Courts have found that the domestic inquiry that was held against the petitioner was fair and proper. Both the Courts have also held that the misconduct alleged against respondent No. 1 is proved. However, both the courts have held that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the respondent No. 1 is harsh and, therefore, he has been granted reinstatement in service, however, without back wages. The order of the Labour Court was challenged In revision before the Industrial Court by the petitioner. However, the Industrial Court dismissed the revision.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged before me that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner was of serious nature viz. using violence against the co-worker at the place of work. In the submissions of the learned counsel reinstatement of such an employee who has violent attitude is subversive of discipline of the establishment and, therefore, the Courts below were not justified in granting reinstatement in service of the petitioner. In the submissions of the learned counsel, even if the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below that the punishment imposed on respondent No. 1 viz., dismissal from service is taken to be harsh, then also considering the gravity of the misconduct against respondent No. 1 an order of his reinstatement in service could not have been granted.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 on the other hand submitted that he did not assault his co-worker. He had merely put his hand around the shoulder of the co-worker and that the petitioner was framed for a misconduct which he had never committed. The learned counsel further urged that the respondent No. 1 will have 26 years of service if he is granted reinstatement and denial of reinstatement to him would be unjust and extremely harsh.

Now it is clear that concurrent findings have been recorded by both the Courts that the domestic inquiry held against respondent No. 1 is fair and proper and that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner is proved. The respondent No. 1 has not challenged these findings either by filing a separate petition or by filing an affidavit in this petition and, therefore, in my opinion, the learned counsel for the respondent cannot now challenge the findings recorded by the courts below that the misconduct has been held to be proved against him in a fair and proper inquiry. Therefore, the only question that remains to be considered is whether the order of reinstatement granted by the Courts below in favour of respondent No. 1 is proper or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that even if it is accepted that both the Courts below have rightly held that the punishment of dismissal imposed against the petitioner is harsh, then also the courts were not justified in reinstating respondent No. 1 in service because now it has been proved that he is guilty of assaulting a co-worker. In the submissions of the learned counsel, reinstating such an employee would be subversive of discipline in the establishment. In my opinion, there is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. If a workman or an employee is found to be guilty of violent conduct and if such a workman is reinstated in service, then in my opinion, it will definitely have an adverse effect on the discipline that an employer is required to maintain amongst his employees. However, perusal of the order of both the Courts below shows that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by both the Courts below. Therefore, even without disturbing the findings recorded by the courts below that the punishment of dismissal imposed by the respondent No. 1 is harsh. In my opinion, the courts below were not justified in granting him reinstatement in service as in my opinion the interest of justice will be served by directing the respondent to pay 50% of the back wages to the petitioner.

In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds in part. The orders impugned in the petition are set aside and the following order is substituted.

The order passed by the petitioner dismissing the petitioner from service is maintained. However, the petitioner is directed to pay to the respondent No. 1 an amount equal to 50% of the back wages from the date of order of dismissal till the date of this judgment deducting the payments that might have been made by the petitioner to respondent No. 1. Rule made absolute accordingly.

Certified copy expedited.