At, In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. REIS
For the Appellants: A.S. Jaiswal, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, P.D. Meghe, Advocate.
Oral Judgment: (S. A. Bobde, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. ADMIT. Taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties.
3. The appellants are principal employer and Contractor against whom respondent no.1 has filed a complaint for illegal termination of services. The learned Labour Court heard the complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act and came to the conclusion that the services of respondent no.1 were illegally terminated and directed reinstatement of his services.
4. Respondent no. 1 was charged with theft of Copper wire. In fact, it has been found by the Labour Court that the appellant was apprehended in the act of throwing away small piece of Copper wire which has hurt his foot and that has been made a basis of the charge of theft. Having regard to the circumstances, the Labour Court found that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
5. The Industrial Court dismissed the revision preferred against the judgment of the Labour Court and confirmed all the findings. The appellants preferred writ petition to this Court and the learned Single Judge did not find any error of law apparent on the face of record so as to interfere with the finding of the Labour Court. Aggrieved thereby this appeal has been filed. Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants had denied the fact of respondent no.1 being a workman and this aspect has not been gone into by the Labour Court, the Industrial Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court. This point does not have any substance in view of admitted fact that appellant no.2 contractor had issued a charge sheet to respondent no.1, conducted enquiry and dismissed him on the basis that he was a workman. It is for this reason that the point was not seriously in dispute before any of the Courts below. This point was also raised before the learned Single Judge, who found that this point was not seriously pressed before the Courts below. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to go into this aspect of the matter. The next contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that respondent no.1 was in fact charged with theft and, therefore, this must be deemed to be a case of loss of confidence even if the value of the article is minimal. It is not possible to accept this submission in the facts of this case. It has been specifically found that there was no theft but respondent no.1 was found throwing away a piece of Copper wire, which had hurt his foot. In fact, evidence of the appellants? witness Shrikant Yerande was also to that effect. With these findings of fact, there
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
is no question of considering any case of loss of confidence. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. 6. Mr. Meghe, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, is relieved of his undertaking given to this Court in respect of the amount deposited.