Rajendra Manikrao Bonde vs Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., Pune and Another

B.N. Srikrishna, J.—This writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the Award Part I dated 20th November, 1986 and the Award Part II dated 31st August, 1990 in Reference (IDA) No. 161 of 1984 (Old) No. 130 of 1984 (New) made under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

The petitioner is an ex-workman of the First Respondent Company who was working as Miller in the First Respondent''s factory at Pune. At the material time a Trade Union by name Telco Kamgar Sanghatna had entered into a settlement with the Management of the Company. The terms of the said settlement were objected to by the workmen belonging to a rival Trade Union. On 28th September, 1982, the petitioner was working as Miller in the second shift from 3.00 P.M. to 11.30 P.M. On 28th September 1982, the settlement in question was signed by the Members of the Negotiating Committee appointed by the workmen at about 12.30 P.M. Immediately after the settlement was signed, there was jubilation by throwing Gulal on each other. A group to workmen, who were opposing to the settlement, moved around from Department to Department, gathered a number of protesters and marched to the main gate. They indulged in shouting, instigated other workmen by giving slogans and throwing stones at the Security Office resulting in the glass panes of the Office being broken. The petitioner was one of the persons who had taken leading part in instigating the workmen to join the Morcha to the main gate, shout slogans and threw stones. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet-cum-show cause notice dated 23rd October, 1982 alleging misconducts under S. 24(a), (b), (k), (l), (n) and (q) of the Model Standing Orders. The petitioner denied the charges alleged against him and contended that he was innocent and that he had been victimized because he belonged to the rival Trade Union. The Enquiry Officer, by his report dated 27th August, 1983 found the petitioner guilty of all charges alleged against him. After considering the bad previous record of the petitioner, which consisted of one warning for misbehaviour on previous occasion, misconduct of disorderly and indecent behaviour and act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment and causing wilful damage to the property of the establishment, the Management of the First Respondent took the view that it was necessary to dismiss the petitioner in the interest of discipline and dismissed him by an order dated 6th February, 1984.

The petitioner raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement on his original post with full back-wages and continuity of service. The industrial dispute, after being processed, came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Pune, vide Reference (IDA) No. 161 of 1984. Before the Labour Court the First Respondent conceded that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law, Standing Orders and the principles of natural justice. By the impugned Award dated 20th November, 1986, after scanning the record of the Enquiry Officer in detail, the Labour Court held that the enquiry was fair and proper as to procedure and that, except the finding as to misconduct under 24(b) (going on illegal strike or abetting, inciting, instigating or acting in furtherance thereof), the other findings as to misconducts under 24(a), (l), (k) and (q) of the Model Standing Order were proper. In other words, the Labour Court held that the finding of the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner was not perverse. After the Part I Award was made, the First Respondent examined himself before the Labour Court and pointed out that besides himself 54 other workmen were suspended for the same incident on similar charges. He also stated that he did not know as to what happened to other workmen who were said to have been taken back, and did not know whether the full particulars of the other workmen were on record. The Labour Court considered the material on record and came to the conclusion that the termination of the service of the petitioner was justified and that he was not entitled to any relief. In the result, the Labour Court dismissed the reference by the impugned Award dated 31st August, 1990. Hence, this writ petition.

Mr. Gonsalves, learned Advocate for the petitioner, contends that both Part I and Part II Awards are perverse and need to be interfered with by this Court. The only grounds on which Mr. Gonsalves pressed are that the findings are perverse, that there was no proper identification of the petitioner as the workman who indulged in misconduct and that the testimony of the witnesses examined in the enquiry ought not to have been believed on account of inconsistency.

Mr. Gonsalves invited me to go through the enquiry documents and, after perusal of the same with the assistance of the learned Advocates appearing on either side, I find that none of these contentions is borne out. The petitioner was clearly identified by the Assistant Security Officer, A. N. Desai, and the Time Keeper, Inamdar, both of whom, in unmistakable terms, identified the petitioner as the person who was taking leading part in the violent activities near the Security Office and was leading the mob which was throwing stones at the Security Office. Chargeman P. K. Deshpande, who presumably knew the petitioner very well, identified the petitioner as a person who was whistling and making gestures to Co-workmen to come out and join the Morcha to protest against settlement. In the face of this evidence, the Enquiry Officer rightly held the petitioner guilty of misconducts he was charged with. In my view, the Labour Court was justified in holding that the enquiry was proper and that the findings as to misconducts under 24(a), (l), (k) and (q) of the Model Standing Orders were borne out.

The next contention of Gonsalves is that there was discrimination against the petitioner. He contends that although 45 workmen had been charged for misconducts, they had been taken back, but only the petitioner and some other workmen were dismissed from service. A careful perusal of the impugned Award Part II dated 31st August, 1990 shows that this contention has been rightly rejected by the Labour Court. There was hardly any material placed on record of the Labour Court to justify such a serious charge of discrimination. The past record of the petitioner was bad; there was no material on record to show the comparative roles played by the other workmen. The evidence before the Enquiry Officer clearly shows that the petitioner was one of the workmen taking leading part in the incident. If the First Respondent Company decided to take serious action against the workmen who acted as leaders during the incident and did not take action against the ''dumb driven cattle'', there is hardly be any scope for urging discrimination. In the absence of any material facts to justify the conclusion that there was such discrimination or victimization against the petitioner, I am unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Gonsalves.

I find no reasons to interfere with the two Awards. There is no substance in the writ petition, which is liable to dismissed.

Writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.