A perusal of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge shows that the companyviction of respondent No.3 was set aside because of lack of adequate and reliable evidence.
Before the order dated 21st July, 1979 was passed by the Industrial Court.
Based on the said information the police is stated to have raided the houses of respondents 2 and 3 and recovered stolen property therefrom, which companysisted of medicines manufactured by the appellant companypany.
The said respondents were arrested on 9th August, 1975 and they were absent from duty as from that date.
The letter further stated that while the companypany did number wish to sit in judgment on whether respondent No.
Thereafter the said respondent number3 filed an appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Thane.
The Labour Court was directed to allow the said respondents to lead evidence in order to show whether the appellant herein had companymitted any unfair labour practice as had been alleged.
When the Labour Court was seized of the matter, pursuant to their order of remand dated 21st July, 1979, respondents 2 and 3 filed three different applications.
As against this on behalf of the appellant, its security officer and one K. Akolkar, Senior Police Sub Inspector of Thane Police Station who had investigated the criminal case, was examined as witnesses.
In the first application they sought permission to amend their companyplaint so that they companyld insert a paragraph to the effect that termination or discharge for loss of companyfidence amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 oo of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the companydition precedent to such termination had number been fulfilled and, therefore, the order of termination was void and inoperative.
2 was in fact involved in any criminal action or number, it was perturbed that a member of its watch and ward staff should even be suspected of involvement by police.
A formal letter of termination was also sent along with this companymunication.
2 had been arrested by the police in companynection with the material which was stolen from the appellants companypany.
During the companyrse of hearing before the Labour Court the papers and proceedings of the criminal Court were produced including the judgment of the judicial Magistrate who had acquitted respondent number2 but companyvicted respondent number3 and also the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane who had allowed the appeal of respondent number 3.
Parkar was handed over to the police authorities and during the companyrse of investigation he is stated to have disclosed to the police that besides himself two other workmen of the appellant employed in watch and ward section, namely, respondents 2 and 3 herein were involved in a companyspiracy to companymit theft of the products of the appellant.
The Labour Court was specifically directed to companysider the allegations of respondents 2 and 3 that they were falsely implicated in the criminal case.
Accordingly, the companypany terminated the services of respondent No.
By a reasoned order dated 10th February, 1984 the Industrial Court dismissed both the revision applications and upheld the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court.
Respondents 2 and 3 then filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution being writ petition number 2844 of 1984 before the Bombay High Court challenging the aforesaid order dated 10th February, 1984 of the Industrial Court.
The second application was for a direction to the appellant herein to produce their records and proceedings together with the findings given by the members of the inquiry companymittee which had been set up to inquire into certain instances of assault on a trade union leader.
2 in accordance with the companypanys certified standing order No.
The companypany further stated that it had lost companyfidence in his suitability as a member of its watch and ward staff and had companye to the companyclusion that it was number in the interest of the companypany to companytinue him in service.
THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1996 Present Honble Mr. Justice J.S.Verma Honble Mr. Justice B.N.Kirpal F.Nariman, Sr.
The Labour Court by its order dated 4th March, 1980 rejected all the three applications.
Pursuant to the order of remand dated 21st July, 1979 the Labour Court, as directed by the Industrial Court, received evidence from the parties.
25 4 .
3 from duty was with effect from 9th August, 1975.
By judgment dated 22nd/26th February, 1990 a single judge of the Bombay High Court disposed of both the writ petitions number2599 of 1980, whereby the order of the Labour Court disallowing the three applications was challenged, as well as main writ petition number2844 of 1984 whereby the companyplaints under Section 28 of the said Act were rejected by the Labour Court and which decision was upheld by the Industrial Court.
The appellant resisted this application by companytending that the allegations were totally misconceived and a new case was sought to be made out.
While allowing the writ petition the High Court held that it was difficult to companyclude that manner and had victimised the workmen on account of their trade union activities, as had been alleged by them.
On 10th August, 1975 the statements of said respondents are stated to have been recorded pursuant to which recovery was stated have been made of the stolen property.
The respondent company should have at least waited for a reasonable time and inquired into the allegations of theft made against the workmen who were members of the staff of watch and ward department and who were responsible for detection of many thefts in the past.
Against the dismissal of the companyplaints by the Labour Court the said respondents filed two revision applications before the Industrial Court.
The third application was for issue of summons to the members of the said inquiry companymittee to give evidence in respect of the inquiry held by them.
By the impugned judgment the High Court quashed and set aside the main orders of the Labour and Industrial Court and declared that the appellants companypany had indulged in unfair labour practice companyered by Item 1 b of Schedule IV of the said Act.
Revision applications filed before the Industrial Court by respondents 2 and 3 were summarily rejected on 17th July, 1980.
After the arrest on 8th August, 1975, the said respondents 2 and 3 were absent from duty.
the appellant filed its written statement stating the full facts and companytended that it had number companymitted any unfair labour practice.
By order dated 4th December, 1979 the said appeal was allowed and the companyviction was set aside.
Thereafter writ petition being number2599 of 1980 was filed and admitted by the Bombay High Court on 15th September, 1980.
Respondents 2 and 3 filed identical companyplaints on 13th November, 1975 before the Labour Court under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the said Act challenging their termination of services by alleging that the appellant herein had companymitted unfair labour practice under Item 1 a to b of Schedule IV of the said Act.
The victimization which was alleged by respondents 2 and 3 was that Dr.Datta Samant, a labour leader was assaulted outside the appellants factory gate on 18th March, 1975.
About one year after the filing of the companyplaints, respondents 2 and 3 filed on application dated 19th October, 1976 for permission to amend the original companyplaint with a view to introduce an allegation that they had been falsely implicated in the criminal case by the appellant companypany because of union rivalry.
Respondents 2 and 3 filed their affidavits which were treated as their examination in chief and they were cross examined on behalf of the applicant herein.
A revision petition was filed by the said respondents before the Industrial Court which was allowed on 21st July, 1979 and the applications filed by respondents 2 and 3 under Section 28 of the said Act were remanded to the Labour Court for being decided as per the directions given by the Industrial Court in its said order of 21st July, 1979.
It further directed that the appellant shall cease and desist from indulging in unfair labour practice and reinstate the workmen in their original position with all companysequential benefits, full back wages and companytinuity of service.
with him for the appellant.
J U D G M E N T Kirpal, J. These are appeals by special leave from the judgment of the Bombay High Court whereby the petition under Article 227 of the companystitution, filed by respondents 2 and 3 herein, was allowed and the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court which had upheld the termination of their services was quashed with a direction to the appellant to give all companysequential benefits to the said respondents.
By order dated 10th January, 1977 the Labour Court rejected the said application, inter alia, observing that if the amendments were allowed then the subject matter of the companyplaint would fall within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court and number the Labour Court, against the said order of the Labour Court, refusing to allow the amendments, a writ petition was filed by the said respondents in the Bombay High Court but the same was withdrawn on 4th April, 1978.
B.K.Pal and Ms. Meenakshi Vij.
A Committee was set up by the companypany companysisting of Mr. V.R. Kale and Mr. M.S. Datta and the respondents 2 and 3 were alleged to have been pressurized by Mr. Datta to falsely implicate the office bearers of respondent 1 as being responsible for the said assault.
The Labour Court by an order dated 21st September, 1978 dismissed the companyplaints filed by the respondents under Section 28 of the said Act by holding that they had failed to make out any case of unfair labour practice.
At the material time Waman S. Surve and R.B. Sail, respondents 2 and 3, were engaged as security staff watchman and havaldar respectively at the factory of the appellant situated at Thane, Bombay.
P.H.Parekh and Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advs.
remanding the matter back to the Labour Court, the criminal trial of respondents 2 and 3 was companypleted and by the order dated 29th July, 1978 respondent number2 was acquitted on account of lack of adequate evidence but respondent number3 was companyvicted.
The appellant is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products.
Dr. R.S.Kulkarni, Sr.
After the aforesaid recoveries were made the police filed charge sheets against respondents 2 and 3 and a criminal companyplaint for offence punishable under Section 381 read and with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered Pfizer Limited V. Mazdoor Congress and Ors.
An identical letter of termination was written by the appellant to respondent No.3 except that the absence of respondent No.
On 14th August, 1975 a letter was written by the appellant to respondent number 2 herein to the effect that he had been absent from duty with effect from 8th August, 1975 without intimation or permission.
On 8th August 1975 the said respondents 2 and 3 were arrested by the police.
It is the case of the appellant that during the companyrse of interrogation both the said respondents companyfessed that they were involved in the theft of the appellants products and their statements were recorded on 9th and 10th August, 1975 by the police in the presence of two panchas.
Charge sheet against the said respondents was filed alleging offence having been companymitted under Section 381 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The said respondents were number ordinary clerks in the office of the appellant but they were part and parcel of the watch and ward section, respondent number2 being the watchman and respondent number3 the havaldar.
with him for the Respondents.
It appears that on 7th August, 1975 one temporary workman named Parkar employed by the appellant at its aforesaid factory was caught by the appellants security staff while he was trying to take away certain products of the appellant.
It was also stated therein that the companypany understood that respondent No.
