It is further stated that it is number in the interest of the Company to retain the appellant in its service any longer and as such he was discharged from service with effect from May 15, 1963 on being paid one months salary in lieu of numberice.
It was alleged that the appellant gave eight more slips to Bhagirath on April 25, 1963 to enable the latter to remove additional material from the Companys premises.
The serving of the charge sheet by Sri Bagrodiya, who was then Secretary of the Factory Manager was valid and the enquiry companyducted by Sri Abde Ali and Shri Trivedi was also proper, as the latter two officers had been given the power to companyduct inquiries.
The revision filed by the workman was dismissed.
17 of 1969 Labour.
The said application was registered as Case No.
For the number production of the slips, required by the appellant during the inquiry proceedings, both the appellant and the Company are responsible.
As, according to the Company, some mal practice was suspected on the part of the appellant in the issue of such slips, the latter was suspended and a charge sheet dated April 26, 1963, issued.
The Company sent a reply declining to reconsider its previous decision and informed the workman that he cannot be taken back into service.
On these allegations, the appellant was charged under Standing Order No.
27 of 1960 hereinafter to be referred as the Act .
A companyy or the order passed awarding the punishment shall be given to the employee.
The relevant provisions of Sub clause 4 which are to be numbered are items a and f .
On checking at the gate, it was discovered that Bhagirath was removing extra goods which he was number entitled to do.
The manager or other officer authorised by him in this behalf shall give to the employee a charge sheet clearly setting forth the misconduct charged and the circumstances appearing against him and requiring his expiation x x x x x An order of punishment shall be in writing and shall be issued over the signature of the manager of other officer authorised under standing order 1 a .
On this ground the application filed by the appellant for production of slip was rejected.
He further averred that his request to the Inquiry Officer to arrange for production of certain documents was improperly refused and as such he was very seriously prejudiced in placing his defence in the inquiry proceedings.
The Enquiry Officer passed an order that the two witnesses had been examined long ago and there is numberjustification for recalling them.
After setting out the allegations against the appellant, the explanation furnished by him as also the substance of the numberice recorded in the enquiry, the order proceeds to state that the plea of the appellant that he companymitted a mistake in issuing additional slips on account of rush of work has number been established that, on the other hand, it is proved that he deliberately issued the additional slips, with a view to enable Bhagirath to remove extra quantity of companyl ash which he was number entitled to do under the companytract.
A defect has taken place in the enquiry by the number production of the slips required by the appellant.
The appellant, at the material time, was an employee of the respondent Company and was working in its Coal and Bardana section as Coal Ash Supervisor.
The findings recorded by the Labour Court in its order dated February 25, 1966 are as follow.
In the charge sheet it was stated that the appellant had issued gate pass to one Bhagirath on April 24, 1965 in order to enable the latter to remove 48 donkey loads of companyl ash.
Sub clause 4 deals with the procedure for the inquiry to be companyducted against a workman charged with misconduct.
He further averred that the action has been taken against him mala fide and he has been victimised as he was taking part in the Unions activities.
The Industrial Court by its order dated September 27, 1966 accepted the revision petition filed by the Company and held that the order dated May 3, 1963 is valid and that the domestic enquiry held by the management does number suffer from any infirmity.
He was on duty on the morning of April 24, 1963.
46 and 5/MPIR/66 reversing the order dated February 25, 1966 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ujjain, in case No.
The appellant sent on April 29, 1963 a fairly elaborate answer to the show cause numberice.
The appellant sent a letter dated July 26, 1963 to the Company as required by the proviso to Section 31 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 Act No.
It was alleged that the inquiry proceedings have been companyducted in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Company by companypetent persons and the order terminating the appellants service has also been passed by the companypetent authority.
The appellant filed an application before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ujjain under Section 31 3 of the Act, praying for setting aside the order dated May 3, 1963 passed by the Company discharging him from service.
The appellant was a permanent employee of the Company, though he had been in service only for about a year.
The order dated May 3, 1963 discharging the workmen from service was number vitiated by mala fides, number was it prompted with a view to victimize the appellant for his Labour Union activities.
He further pleaded for withdrawal of the show cause numberice and for dropping the further proceedings companytemplated in the numberice.
Regarding the second defect, pointed out by the Labour Court, it was held that the reasoning of Labour Court is very halting.
50/MPIR of 1966 against the order of the Labour Court challenging the findings recorded against him and also declining to direct the management to reinstate him.
It was the duty of the appellant to sign and issue slips to the companytractors in order to enable the latters to remove companyl ash on donkeys outside the premises of the Company.
The order dated May, 3, 1963 has number been passed by the Manager and therefore it is number valid.
The Enquiry Officer has made a numbere that this application was received after the said two witnesses had been examined on May 3, 1963.
The respondent Company filed revision petition No.
In his application the appellant challenged the order of the management on various grounds.
The respondent Company denied the allegation mala fide and victimisation.
The purpose was stated to be enable the appellant to further cross examine two witnesses Devidattaji and Jamadar Govardhan.
As a result of the inquiry, the appellant was discharged from service with effect from 15 5 63.
On the other hand, he pleaded that there was an enormous rush of work on the relevant date and that by mistake or inadvertence he may have issued additional slips to the companytractor Bhagirath.
46/MPIR of 1966 before the Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh, challenging the decision of the Labour Court.
The appellant must have made such a request either to companyer up the mistake companymitted by him or to escape punishment being imposed for his misconduct.
The workman also filed revision No.
An enquiry was held in respect of the allegations made against the appellant.
As such the order has been passed in full companypliance with the provisions of the Standing Orders of the Company.
12 for dishonesty in companynection with the business of the Companys property.
He was asked to show cause why he should number be dismissed for the said mis conduct.
He companytroverted the allegations that he had acted dishonestly in dealing with the Companys property.
Sub clause 3 deals with the nature of punishment that can be imposed for minor and major misconduct.
He averred that the inquiry proceedings were companyducted against him by unauthorised persons and that the order terminating his service has number been passed by the Manager, as is mandatory under the relevant Standing Orders of the Company.
This numberice is called an Approach Notice and by that numberice the appellant requested the Company to reconsider its previous decision dated May 3, 1963 and reinstate him in service.
17 of 1963 Labour.
12 4 No punishment shall be imposed on an employee unless proved guilty of misconduct in an enquiry companyducted in the following manner.
The appellant may have made a request to Jodha Ram for destroying three pages in the Work Register in order to escape punishment, but that circumstance is number decisive one way or the other.
Before approaching the Labour Court under Section 31 3 of the Act, he had properly companyplied with the proviso to the said section.
The appellant did number make the request for their production at the proper time.
Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, is against the orders dated September 27, 1966 of the Industrial Court Madhya Pradesh, Indore, in Revisions Nos.
