MIRAJ TALUKA GIRNI KAMGAR SANGH Vs. MANAGER SHREE GAJANAN WEAVING MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns the orders dated April 8, 1986, and January 19, 1987, made by the Labour Court, Sangli, in Application (B. I. R.) No. 12 of 1984 as confirmed by the order dated August 10, 1989, made by the Industrial court, Kolhapur, in Appeal (IC) No. 12 of 1987. The proceedings before both the courts were under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act. ')

(2.) THE petitioner was employed as a Weaver in the service of the first Respondent, a Textile mill, from the year 1980. On January 25, 1984, he was given a chargesheet. The charges alleged against him were as follows :

(3.) IN my view, the petition can be disposed of only on the short contention canvassed by the petitioner, namely, that the chargesheet served on him was delighfully vague and thereby he was not given proper opportunity to effectively defend himself against the charges. From a perusal of the charges, which have been reproduced hereinbefore, it is clear that no specific instances of the misconducts alleged against the petitioner were cited in the chargesheet. The chargesheet was totally lacking in particulars as to instances of the misconducts falling within each of the five categories alleged against the petitioner. An employee faced with a vague charge that he is guilty of a described type of misconduct, would be extremely hard put to defend himself against the charge unless he is informed such particulars as would enable him to give an effective reply thereto and demonstrate that the charges are false or, otherwise not acceptable. Scanning the chargesheet given to the petitioner in the present case, I am of the view that it can be used as a model for what a chargesheet ought not to be. In my judgment, therefore, the chargesheet itself ought to have been quashed and struck down by the two Courts below on this very count. The fact that voluminous evidence is led in enquiry is no substitute for a chargesheet clearly setting forth the allegations with sufficient precision and particulars so as to enable the employee to defend himself. That is the very purpose of a chargesheet. This is the barest requirement of a chargesheet consistent with principles of natural justice and any chargesheet which fails to comply with this requirement is no chargesheet at all. If the chargesheet fails to stand up to this test, the rest of the domestic enquiry is useless and is merely an eye - wash. In my view, the entire enquiry conducted against the petitioner was mere farce. The petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to defend himself. The principles of natural justice were not complied with. The findings of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court upholding the validity of the enquiry are perverse and are required to be interfered with. Once the conclusion is reached that domestic enquiry was improper and vitiated, I find that the first respondent - employer led evidence on the merits of the charge and there is no material on record supporting the charges. Consequently, the charges must fail. Hence, the order of dismissal needs to be quashed and set aside and the employee would be entitled to get the relief of reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages from the date of dismissal.