DEVGIRI TEXTILE MILLS LTD Vs. ANIL AMBADASRAO JAWLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 3rd December, 1990 passed in Writ Petition No. 3970 of 1989 by this court (Single Bench ). It would be appropriate to list out the factual matrix, in short, leading to writ petition No. 3970 of 1989.

(2.) THE Respondent No. 1 [hereinafter referred as "the employee", for short], was issued a charge sheet on 24th December, 1983 alleging that while he was on duty in the first shift on 21 st December, 1983 he had left his work place and instigated the workers of the Ring Frame Department to illegally stop the work and accordingly the work was suspended. He had thus instigated and participated in an illegal strike by collecting the workers from the Ring Frame Department, in front of the Spinning office and when they met the Spinning Master he had told them to restart the work, the employee disobeyed the orders. The charges, as per the Model Standing Orders applicable to the Textile Mills read as under:

(3.) (I) Going on an illegal strike or abetting, instigating, inciting or acting in furtherance of such strike; (ii) wilful damage to work in process or to any property of the undertaking; (iii) wilful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of the superior; (iv) indisciplined and indecent behaviour in the premises of the mills; and (v) the commission of any act subversive of good behaviour on the premises of the undertaking. In the said charge sheet it was also mentioned that the management had decided to hold a departmental inquiry and Shri A. S. Wagle, Administrative and personnel Officer was appointed as an Inquiry Officer which would be commenced on 28th December, 1983. On 30th December, 1983 the employee submitted his reply to the charge sheet and while denying the charges he pointed out that he was an active office bearer in the past and always fought by adopting legal means in the cause of the workers which was not liked by some other group as well as the management and, therefore, a farce was made to proceed against him. During the course of inquiry three witnesses were examined on behalf of the management and seven witnesses on behalf of the employee. The request of the employee to be represented by Shri V. D. Deshpande, who was a practicing lawyer, as well as a trade unionist was not acceded to and the employee therefore defended himself before the Inquiry officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 19th January, 1984 and had held that the following charges were proved against the employee: