Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Crane Process Flow Technologies Pvt. Ltd., an engineering company, challenged the judgment and order of the Industrial Court, Satara, dated 11 June 2021, which dismissed its revision application against the Labour Court's award dated 27 January 2020. The Labour Court had held that the findings of the Inquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry against the respondent-workman, Amol V. Waghmale, were perverse. The respondent was appointed as a trainee operator on 13 November 2009 and confirmed in 2011. He was the president of the trade union. On 18 April 2017, the respondent allegedly entered the shop floor without authority while not on duty, behaved indecently, made other workmen stop work on the pretext of a casual worker being employed, and threatened the production supervisor, Mr. Adsul, with dire consequences. A show cause notice was issued on 2 May 2017, and a charge-sheet was served on 11 May 2017 alleging misconduct under Clauses 24-K, 24-L, 24-Q, and 24-R of the Standing Orders. A domestic enquiry was held, and the Inquiry Officer found the respondent guilty. The respondent then filed a complaint under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, challenging the enquiry. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence, held that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were perverse as they were based on no evidence and contrary to the material on record. The Industrial Court upheld this view in revision. The High Court, in the present writ petition, examined the scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution and found that the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and Industrial Court were not perverse or erroneous. The High Court noted that the Labour Court had meticulously analyzed the evidence and correctly concluded that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were perverse. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the orders of the lower courts.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Domestic Enquiry - Perversity of Findings - Section 11-A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Labour Court held that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were perverse as they were based on no evidence and contrary to the material on record. The Industrial Court upheld this view in revision. The High Court declined to interfere, holding that the concurrent findings of perversity were not shown to be erroneous or perverse themselves. (Paras 1-17) B) Industrial Law - Revision - Scope of Interference - Section 44, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The Industrial Court, in revision, can examine whether the Labour Court's decision is perverse or erroneous in law. The High Court, under Article 227, can interfere only if the subordinate court's order is perverse or without jurisdiction. (Paras 2-17) C) Industrial Law - Misconduct - Threat and Disorderly Behaviour - Clauses 24-K, 24-L, 24-Q, 24-R of Standing Orders - The workman was charged with entering the shop floor without authority, behaving indecently, stopping work, and threatening a supervisor. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty, but the Labour Court found the findings perverse due to lack of evidence and contradictions in testimony. (Paras 3-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court erred in holding that the findings of the Inquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry against the respondent-workman were perverse, and whether the High Court should interfere with such concurrent findings.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Perversity of findings in domestic enquiry
- Scope of judicial review under Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 11-A
- Standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings
