SURESH A KERKAR Vs. S V NEVAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition challenges the Award of the respondent No. 1, the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, dated 10-8-1988, in a Reference made by the Government to the Tribunal under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) which has held that the action of the Management of M/s. Hindustan Ciba-Geigy Limited, the respondent No. 2. , (hereinafter called the respondent) in terminating the services of the petitioner who was working as Watchman for the respondents Company from 7-2-1984 is just and legal and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner was working as a security guard/watchman for the Company since April, 1972 and by letter No. TE-6. 5-114 dated 15-9-1983 was charge-sheeted for misconduct under Standing Orders applicable to him.

(3.) THE case of the respondent is that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and stolen property was recovered from him as a result of which he was detained in police custody from 27-8-1983 to 1-9-1983. Inspite of that the petitioner failed to report the factual position and instead misrepresented to the Company by his letter dated 29-8-1983 informing that he was suffering from typhoid and the doctor had advised him bed rest for 20 days with effect from 25-8-1983. The petitioner once again represented to the Company that he was suffering from jaundice and vomiting by producing a medical certificate dated 3-9-1983 from one Dr. Chodankar even though he was not under any medical treatment or illness during his detention in police custody. Dr. G. K. Salelkar, the Companys Physician, who examined him at his residence on 9-9-1983 certified that medical examination of the petitioner did not show that he was suffering from jaundice in the recent past. The petitioner in his explanation dated 21-9-1993 denied the charges and refused to admit that he had sought extension of his leave on a false pretext that he was sick or that he had misrepresented the Company about his illness. Instead it was contended that he was on leave from 16-8-1983 as he was not keeping good health but was required to resume his duties on 31-8-1988 at which time he was still under the medical treatment of Dr. Chodankar who is his family doctor. However, to 27-8-1983, the Ribandar Police called him at the Police Station and suddenly detained on suspicion that he was in possession of some stolen property about which he was not at all aware neither the police recovered any property from his possession. He further stated that the police has not filed any criminal case or complaint against him in the Court of law and merely because he was arrested under apprehension or because his name appeared in the newspapers he cannot be linked with any criminal offence so much so the Ribandar police as well as the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji set him free as innocent. The petitioner once again reiterated in his reply that he was under medical treatment of Dr. Chodankar from 16-8-1983 onwards and even after his release he had obtained a certificate from the doctor as he was asked by the Company to justify his sickness. He also stated he could not understand as to how Dr. Salelkar failed to trace his sickness and insisted that he was really sick as certified by Dr. Chodankar who is equally a competent doctor. With regard to his failure to inform the Company about his detention he pleaded that this was totally incidental and without any malice as he was of the opinion that the Company would not be concerned about his personal matters more so because he was not even questioned in this respect by the respondent prior to his charge-sheet. He contended that he had put in 12 years of service to the Company without any stigma on his past service records.