Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1982]135ITR49a(Bom); (1984)ILLJ203Bom
Chandurkar, J.1. The petitioner was in the employment of respondent No. 1 company as a watchman. He was charged with misconduct on the ground that at about 12.40 a.m. on 6th July, 1976, while he was working in the third shift, he along with another security guard assaulted a canteen boy after having come near the gate of Parle Beverages Private Limited factory. This misconduct, according to the employer, would fall under the Standing Orders which refer to 'drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the establishment' and 'commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment'. On the ground that as a result of the enquiry the misconduct was proved, the enquiry the misconduct was proved, the petitioner was dismissed on 30th November, 1976. The Union raised an industrial dispute arising out of this dismissal of the employee and another watchman and this dispute was referred to the Labour Court. One of the grou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1957)59BOMLR769
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. A notification was issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act (Act LX of 1952). The notification set up a Commission consisting of Mr. Justice Tendolkar, N.R. Modi and S.C. Chaudhuri. It gave reasons for the appointment of the Commission and set out the matters into which the Commission was to inquire and make a report. The notification is in the following terms :-New Delhi, the 11th December 1956S.R.0. 2993-Whereas it has been made to appear to the Central Government that-(1) a largo number of companies and some firms were promoted, and/or controlled by Sarvashri Ramkrishna Dalmia, Jaidayal Dalmia, Shanti Prasad Jain, Sriyans Prasad Jain, Shital Prasad Jain or some on e or more of them and by others being either relatives or employees of the said person or persons, closely connected with the said persons ;(2) large amounts were subscribed by the investing public in the shares of some of these companies ;(3) there have boon gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(3)ALLMR135; 2002(4)BomCR772; [2001(91)FLR307]; (2001)IILLJ1504Bom; 2001(3)MhLj673
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The petitioner, an ex-employee of Air India, has impugned in this petition the Order dated 11th January, 1988, passed by Deputy Director In-flight Service, dismissing him from the service of Air India Corporation from the date of communication of the order to him. He has also impugned the order dated 30th March, 1988, passed by Secretary and Deputy Director (Administration), Air India dismissing his appeal against the said order dated 11th January, 1988.2. The petitioner was working as an Assistant Flight Purser with Air India. He was on temporary posting at London, where he was posted along with several others to perform flight duty, and to facilitate his stay in London, the petitioner was provided with accommodation in Sheraton Heathrow Hotel. On 30th April. 1974, he was apprehended at about 8p.m. by London Police on the allegation of being in possession of 195 mg. of Canabls, a controlled drug of Class B. The charge-sheet read as follows:'At 95, Gunterstone Road,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(2)BomCR606; [1992(65)FLR360]; (1992)IILLJ847Bom
1. These two writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugn Part 1 Award dated April 30, 1985 and Part 11 Award dated April 30, 1986 made in Reference (IDA) Nos. 108 and 111 of 1978 (Writ Petition No. 6005 of 1986) and Part I Award dated July 30, 1984 and Part II Award dated April 30, 1986 made in Reference (IDA) Nos. 109 and 110 of 1978 (Writ Petition No. 2067 of 1987). Since the facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petitions are common and the contentions are identical, it would be convenient to dispose of both these writ petitions by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions were employed as workmen in the Industrial Establishment of the first Respondent in both the writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 6005 of 1986 pertains to two workmen, R. U. Gokarn and N. B. Dhamdhere, while Writ Petition No. 2067 of 1987 pertains to other two workmen, V. R. Thakurdesai and A. K. Maini. 3. The two Awards impugned by the petitioners i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(2)BomCR184; (1992)IILLJ394Bom
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order dated March 27, 1986 made by the First Labour Court, Pune, in Complaint (ULP/LCP) No. 40 of 1984, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The first respondent is a company carrying on business in the engineering industry and owns a factory at Pune. The petitioner was employed in the said factory. The factory, at the material time, employed about 600 workmen. The workmen resorted to a tool-down strike from May 18, 1983 to June 22, 1983 and thereafter a total strike from June 26, 1983 to July 2, 1983. During this period, a meeting was held on May 29, 1983, near Mehta Hospital, Chinchwad, Pune, which was addressed by the activists of the union sponsoring the strike. During the meeting, one Moses Gabriel Francis, a senior workman of the factory, voiced his doubts as to the advisability of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)99BOMLR407
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 20th November 1992 made in Revision Application (ULP) No. 63 of 1987 by the Member, Industrial Court, Thane allowing the Revision Application and setting aside the order dated 29th May, 1987 made by the Labour Court, Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 62 of 1987, & W.P. 5243 of 1992 both under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The first Respondent was employed as a Stores Clerk in the service of the Petitioner for about 14 years. On 25th November, 1979 at about 5.15 p.m. one lorry was carrying material from the Petitioner's Kalwe Plant to its Kurla Plant. Just outside the main gale, the lorry was checked by one Goradia, Materials Manager, and Jamadar Kadam of Security Department and a bag containing approximately 50kgs. of Ferro Molybdenum, a costly chemical also known as Ferro-moly, valued at Rs. 22,000/- was seen bein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR984]; (2008)IIILLJ226Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent waives service. By consent of counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted in order to challenge an award of the Labour Court in a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has held that the two chargesheeted workmen had committed serious misconduct upon which an order of dismissal from service could not be regarded as harsh or disproportionate. The Labour Court was of the view that the workmen were consequently not entitled to an order of reinstatement with full back wages. Having held thus, the Labour Court has awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to one of the two workmen, (A.S. Borade), and Rs. 3 lakhs to the other (V.B. Sawant). The correctness of this order is challenged by the employ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1994)IIILLJ711Bom
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. This petition is directed against the award dated 16th June 1987 made in Reference (IDA) No. 1097 of 1981 by the Presiding Officer, Second Labour Court, Bombay, (Respondent No. 4 herein). The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this Petition are as under:2. (a) The Petitioner is a registered partnership firm carrying on business of manufacture of pressure die-cast components in its factory situate at Sewri, Bombay. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the workmen who were employed by the Petitioners to work in their factory. On 20th February 1981, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were served with individual charge sheets alleging that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had assaulted one Sadhu Saran Sadhwani, another workman, while he was going back from the factory on 12th February 1981 after finishing his work. The Petitioner-employer alleged that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 workmen were guilty of misconduct under model Standing Order 24(k) and (1) which read as under:-'24....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(4)ALLMR678; 2001(4)BomCR766; [2002(92)FLR535]
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. An order of dismissal has been sustained by the Labour Court in a reference to adjudication under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has held that the misconduct stood proved. This conclusion was arrived at on the basis of evidence which was adduced before the Labour Court on behalf of the employer, the first respondent to these proceedings. The Labour Court had initially come to the conclusion that the enquiry which had been held by the employer into the charge of misconduct was not fair and proper. Consequently in view of the well settled position in law an opportunity was given to the employer to sustain the charge of misconduct by leading evidence before the Labour Court. On the basis of the evidence, the Labour Court concluded that the charge was established and that the penalty of dismissal was not disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct. 2. The petitioner before the Court was employed as a store-keeper with the first...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR226; [2006(108)FLR1078]; 2006(2)MhLj273
F.I. Rebello, J.1. On behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel impugns the award dated 10-6-2002 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1. It has refused to interfere with the punishment of dismissal on the petitioner herein.The petitioner impugned the award briefly on the following counts.It is firstly pointed out that the Criminal Court in respect of the offences which is the subject-matter of the charge-sheet and on which the charge-sheet was founded discharged the petitioner. Once the petitioner was discharged, the respondent-employer could not have proceeded with the enquiry. Secondly, it is submitted that the punishment imposed considering the charge proved and the past service record is disproportionate and consequently has to be set aside. It is further submitted that if the past record was to be considered, the petitioner ought to have been informed of the same so as to enable him to give his explanation. That has not been done and consequently, on that count, the ...
Tag this Judgment!