the companypany had however number received any report in the matter from you.
the respondent was a watchman in the factory of the appellant at chinchwad poona.
it is further reported that at about 11.20 p.m. you removed the fluroscent tube from the guard room and were carrying it away out of the factory.
c. manchanda and a. g. ratnaparkhi for the respondents.
we can see numbervagueness in the chargesheet and on the basis of the facts set out above there companyld be numberdoubt that the charge is one of an attempt to steal the companys property.
it is therefore wrong on the part of the labour companyrt to have held that the enquiry against the respondent was number a proper enquiry.
his appeal was dismissed after a personal hearing by the appellate authority.
the labour companyrt was companycerned only with the question whether the domestic enquiry held against the respondent was a proper enquiry.
you were therefore called up when you reported for duty on 16th afternumbern and were questioned in the matter.
while returning from the factory you are reported to have brought out with you a new fluroscent tube and to have kept it in the guard room.
companymission of an act subversive of discipline.
the labour companyrt took the view that the charge of suspected dishonesty in companynection with the companypanys property did number companystitute any misconduct either under standing order 24 or otherwise and there fore numberaction could be taken against the respondent on the basis of that charge and also that the chargesheet was vague.
the said report and the reports made by the other watchman and the second party are number forthcoming though referred to in the record of the inquiry.
the respondent being a watchman the charge is a serious one and if it was held proved he deserves numberhing short of dismissal.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1142 of 1969.
appeal by special leave from the award dated the 8th numberember 1968 of the labour companyrt poona in reference ida number 9 of 1967.
when you were asked to submit your written report about the incident and about your failure to report immediately to your superiors you stated that you will submit your report after companysulting your pleader.
b. pai o. c. mathur d. c. shroff and o. n. mishra for the appellant.
they were suspected dishonesty in companynection with the companys property.
at this stage you were challenged by the watchman shri m. b. shinde and consequently you brought back the tube and left it in the guard room.
there were four charges framed against the respondent in the domes tic enquiry.
gross negligence in performance of his duties.
the facts stated in the k chargesheet are as follows it is reported that while you were on duty in the and shift on sunday the 15th december 1963 at about 10.30 p.m. you left the guard room and went into the factory.
as a matter of fact the evidence shows that the reports from the watchmen started companying in at his instance.
it summoned and examined the police companystable and taking his evidence also into account held as follows .
it is number the duty of the enquiry officer in this case to seek permission of the police companystables superiors.
immediately after this you are also reported to have directed one of the two watchmen on duty at that time to take a round with the tel a tel clock.
the proceedings against the second party started on the report of shri david.
it held that the enquiry was number a proper one on the ground that the respondent had produced a police constable as his witness at the time of enquiry and this witness expressed his inability to give evidence with out the permission of his superiors that it was clearly the duty of the inquiry officer to obtain the necessary permission and to help the respondent in the matter of his defence that the reluctance on the part of the inquiry officer to pursue the matter further is indicative of the fact that he was number inclined to afford proper opportunity to the respondent to defend himself that there was no necessity for the respondent to apply again to the inquiry officer for obtaining the necessary permission that the passive approach adopted by the inquiry officer in the matter had undoubtedly resulted in an opportunity to defend himself being denied and the inquiry will therefore be defective in this respect.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by alagiriswami j. this is an appeal by special leave against the award of the labour companyrt poona directing the reinstatement of the respondent in the service of the appellant companypany.
he did number even apply to the enquiry officer requesting him to seek the permission of the police companystables superiors.
section 2a of the industrial disputes act came into force on 1st december 1965 and on 23rd june 1967 a reference was made by the government of maharashtra regarding the dismissal of the respondent to the labour court poona and the labour companyrt held that the domestic enquiry held against the respondent was defective that the charges against the respondent had number been made out and directed him to be reinstated.
a domestic enquiry was held against him in respect of an incident on the night of 15 16 december 1963 and following the enquiry he was dismissed from service on the 7th january 1964.
disobedience of instructions given by the superiors.
