- (1.)The petitioners in both these writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution are the same namely Waman Surve and Ram Sail and Mazdoor Congress, a trade union, representing both of them. We shall hereinafter refer to Waman Surve and Ram Sail as "the workmen". The effective respondent in both Writ Petitions is M/s. Pfizer Limited, a company engaged in manufacturing drugs and pharmaceuticals (hereinafter referred to as "the Company"). The other respondents in both the petitions are the authorities under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "MRTU & PULP Act") such as the Labour Judge, Member and President of the Industrial Court.
(2.)The workmen were the security staff members working with the Company. It appears that on or about August 7, 1975, a workmen by name Parkar was caught red-handed by the security staff of the Company while he was trying to remove certain medicines. This matter was reported to the police and Parkar was taken in police custody. During investigation Parkar appears to have made certain disclosure to the police on account of which the present workmen were also arrested. The Company, therefore, losing confidence in the workmen took resort to Standing Order No. 3(4) and by a registered letter dated August 14, 1975 terminated their services. It was communicated to the workmen, while terminating their services, that they were absent from duty from August 8, 1975 without intimation or permission and it was understood that they were arrested by the police on permission and it was understood that they were arrested by the police in connection with the theft of the materials of the Company. The Company contended in their letter to the workmen that while they did not wish to sit in judgement over the police action whether they (workmen) were in fact involved or not in the crime, they (Company) were perturbed that the members of the watch and ward staff should even be suspected by the police. They (Company) regretted to say that they lost confidence in the suitability of the workmen of watch and ward department and came to the conclusion that it would not be in the interest of the Company to keep them in their employment. Therefore, their services were terminated with immediate effect by a tender of wages in lieu of one month's notice.
(3.)This action of the Company was challenged by the "Mazdoor Congress", the trade union representating the workmen, by filing complainants of unfair labour practice in the Labour Court, Bombay, under section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The trade union and the concerned workmen alleged that the orders of the Company terminating the services of the workmen were in the nature of the punitive action and thus amounted to unfair labour practice covered by Item No. 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. Their contention was that the workmen were victimised by the Company on a false charge. The prayer was that the Company be directed to reinstate the workmen with full back wages.