Raghunath Kisan Kale vs M.S.E.B. And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 383 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.J. Kochar, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18th January, 1994 passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik in Complaint U.L.P. No. 874 of 1989 filed by him against the respondents under section 28 read with Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, challenging the order of punishment imposed on him by way of withholding of increments for two years on permanent basis. According to the petitioner the charges levelled against him were false and fabricated. He also alleged that the enquiry was not fair and proper and the aforesaid punishment, therefore, as illegal and improper and amounted to unfair labour practice.

2. The respondents appeared before the Industrial Court and contested the complaint by filing their written statement. It was contended by them that the petitioner was committing acts of misconduct and he was not doing his work properly and that there were several complaints from the villagers and the officers had to face angry villagers for want of electricity at the proper given time. It was further alleged by the respondents that the petitioner was using very abusive and arrogent language and was threatening his superiors and was refusing to perform his lawful duties and was not obeying the lawful and reasonable orders of the superiors. It was further contended that the petitioner was punished after following the prescribed procedure under the rules and by observing the principles of natural justice. According to the respondents, there was no unfair labour practice in the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner. It was the case of the respondents that they have strictly followed the rules and regulations in imposing the aforesaid punishment and, therefore, there is no failure to implement any Award, agreement or settlement to attract any item of unfair labour practice as alleged.

3. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Member of the Industrial Court framed five issues and on the basis of the evidence and material on record answered the same against the petitioner. The Industrial Court has held that there was no unfair labour practice engaged in by the respondents while imposing aforesaid punishment. I have heard Shri Shidore the learned Advocate for the petitioner. According to him, the action of the respondents was not bona fide and that it smacked of vindictive attitude and amounted to victimisation. Shri Shidore, pointed out certain prima facie observations made by the Industrial Court in the interim order. Shri Shidore further submitted that the respondents had violated the principles of natural justice. Shri Shidore gave whole emphasis on the mala fides of the officers of the respondents. Ms. Baxi on the other hand supported the judgment of the Industrial Court and pointed out that there was absolutely no case of mala fides made out by the petitioner. She further submitted that the petitioner was punished in accordance with the rules and regulations after holding a fair and proper inquiry wherein, the petitioner had taken part and he was given full opportunity of defending himself. The learned Advocates further submitted that instead of imposing a harsher punishment of reversion, as recommended by the disciplinary authority, the respondents had taken a very lenient view and imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments. She pointed out that the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice as to why a harsh punishment of reversion should not be imposed on him. Ms. Baxi further submitted that though the petitioner deserved a harsh punishment of reversion, lenient and sympathetic view was taken and a mild punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect as imposed on him and his position was protected. She further submitted that the learned Member of the Industrial Court has considered all the aspects of the matter including the allegations made against the petitioner and that the fact that the enquiry was held to be fair and proper and, therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was warranted by this Court.

4. I have carefully gone through the proceedings. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impunged order of the Industrial Court. There is no specific allegation of violation of any principles of natural justice on the part of the respondents while imposing the punishment of withholding of two increments with permanent effect. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet to which he had submitted his explanation and he had taken part in the departmental inquiry held against him in the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer has recorded his findings on the basis of the evidence. The Industrial Court has gone into the enquiry and the report of the Enquiry Officer. The Industrial Court has also examined whether there was any violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the respondents and he came to a conclusion that there was complete compliance with the principles of natural justice and that the respondents had observed the rules and regulations in imposing the punishment on the petitioner. The Industrial Court has also quoted extensively in its order verbatim how the petitioner was using abusive and threatening language making it impossible for the superiors to work. The Industrial Court has also noted the consistent refusal to perform his duties amounting to a very serious act of misconduct. On account of failure to discharge his regular duties, the villagers were not receiving electricity at the proper time and they were suffering. The villagers had made several complaints with the respondents. The supply of electricity is an essential necessity particularly in the villages where the supply is for limited hours during which the agriculturists are required to water their fields. On account of irregular supply of electricity the villagers were harassed and they made collective complaints with the respondents. The Industrial Court has taken into account all these factors including the fact that there was no breach of any rule or regulation on the part of the respondents. In these circumstances, I do not find that the order of the Industrial Court suffers from any infirmity to warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. There is absolutely no merit and substance in the petition and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

5. All concerned to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Shirestedar.