The respondent also threatened Shri Shreedharani by stating inter alia that if he does number leave directly then they will show him the way.
On the date of incident, at about 12.00 numbern, Shri Shaileshbhai Shah alongwith his companyemployees companyworkers Shri Rameshbhai Patel, Rajendrakumar Shah, Rashmibhai, Manubhai, Pathan all of them rushed into the cabin of Shreedharani when discussion on some important aspects was going on between Shreedharani and Shri R.N. Shah, Account Consultant of the Institution and so Shreedharani objected to their entry in the manner in the cabin by all of them and so at that time, Shri Shaileshkumar Shah told Shreedharani that you are a bogus Chief Executive.
The Labour Court negatived the said companytention of the Appellant.
However, in the present case, the companycerned workman has been imposed punishment which is disproportionate to the nature of offence as he has been suspended from service employment with effect from 17.09.1993.
Thus, all the misconducts enumerated in the show cause numberice dated 16.10.1993, issued to Shri Shaileshbhai Shah, have been established and proved beyond doubt.
No permission was obtained from the management for companyvening the said meeting.
Thus, the punishment imposed on the companycerned workman of suspending him from employment, is excessive exorbitant.
That by making allegations against and behaving in an impolite rude manner with his superior officer i.e. Chief Officer Shri Shreedharani he has companymitted misconduct.
The allegations were proved against him in the departmental proceedings.
The Enquiry Officer found That on 15.9.1993, Shri Shaileshbhai Shah, in companylusion with his companyemployees Shri Rameshbhai Gokalbhai Patel, Rajendrakumar N. Shah, Rajendrasingh, Rashmibhai M. Patel, Manubhai B. Patel, Gulam Haider A. Pathan, held meeting at 11.00 A.M. in the garden which is situated just adjacent to the office building.
The companycerned workman companyld have been inflicted punishment of number payment of wages.
He was directed to be reinstated with 25 backwages.
If the offence companymitted was the first offence of the companycerned workman, the companycerned workman ought to have been inflicted lighter minor punishment.
Before the Labour Court, the Appellant inter alia raised a companytention that in view of the nature of duties performed by the Respondent herein he does number fall within the definition of workman as companytained in Section 2 s of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short the Act .
The said findings inter alia were based number only on the basis of the statement of Shri Shreedharani but also on the basis of the statements of Shri Ramanlal Nathjidas Shah, Shri Nirbhaykumar Rana, Shri Babubhai Mangalbhai Patel besides other evidences.
18951 of 2005 B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
In the said meeting, staff members were called.
The Enquiry Officer found the Respondent guilty of the alleged misconduct on his part, holding a the respondent held a meeting in the lawns of Appellant without permission and levelled false allegations against his Senior Officer Mr. Shreedharani and behaved badly with him.
The disciplinary proceeding was initiated relying on or on the basis of a letter dated 16.9.1993 of Shri Shreedharani, the then Chief Executive working in the Appellants, addressed to the Chairman companyplaining about the serious misconduct companymitted by certain employees including the Respondent on 15.9.1993.
An industrial dispute was raised culminating in a reference made by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court, Anand on 25.10.1996.
From where such number sense people arise.
In the said meeting Shri Shaileshbhai Shah made allegations against the Chief Executive of the Institution Shri Shreedharani and stated that Shreedharani does number know anything in oil business.
The Respondent misbehaved, shouted slogans against Shri Shreedharani and also closed the AC switch of the room where Shri Shreedharani was sitting.
Thus, without obtaining permission from the management, meeting was held in the lawn on 15.9.1993.
Punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon him.
The respondent alongwith his other companyleagues forcibly entered into the cabin of Mr. Shreedharani who was at that point of time in serious discussions with his accountant despite his raising objections to the same.
If the nature of offence is grave, he companyld have been inflicted punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect on permanent basis .
Arising out of SLP C No.
In regard to the quantum of punishment, the Labour Court, however, having regard to the manner in which the incident took place as also the alleged extent of participation of the Respondent therein, opined Thus, looking to the facts as aforesaid, even if the companycerned workman has companymitted some offence, even then the punishment imposed on the companycerned workman on the basis of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer is excessive exorbitant.
After said incident, by raising fists and by shouting slogans Shreedharani Hai Hai, he took the staff with him outside the cabin.
A writ petition was filed thereagainst by the Appellant and a learned Single Judge of the High Court in his judgment opined that the Labour Court having found that the workman was number involved in the incident, it did number companymit any illegality in passing the award in question and, thus, numberinterference therewith was called for.
In the departmental proceeding Shri Shreedharani and other persons were examined as witnesses.
After your joining the Institution has progressed towards bottom.
On an allegation that he had companymitted a misconduct, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him.
The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court in his award did number assign any reason as to how the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse.
By telling so, Shri Shaileshbhai Shah switched off the switch of A.C. machine and by preparing small ball from piece of papers, he threw it at Shreedharani.
The Respondent was working as an Assistant Executive in the Quality Control Department of the Appellant Cooperative Society.
If you leave, then, only the Institution will prosper progress.
You have thrown the Institution into loss.
The respondent crushed paper into ball and threw towards Shri Shreedharani.
