JUDGMENT
R.J. Kochar, J.
1. The petitioner being the Transport Manager of Pune Municipal Undertaking is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the Industrial Court, Pune passed on 30th November 1995 allowing the complaints filed by the complainants (respondents in each of the petition herein) holding that the orders dated 28th March 1990 issued by the petitioner punishing by said complainants by withholding two additional increments amounted to unfair labour practice within the meaning of items 5 and 9 of the M.R.T.U. and PULP Act. The leaned Member of the Industrial Court also held that the complainants were entitled to the said increments with necessary differences.
2. Facts in nutshell are that the complainants along with other 16 employees were charge sheeted on 30th June 1989 alleging that they had committed misconducts of the nature of participation in an illegal strike and to instigate other employees to take part in such illegal strike and that to obstruct deliberately in the working of the corporation and that to commit such acts which would subvert the discipline of the corporation and that to cause monetary loss to the corporation. Along with the said charge sheet a report of the Depot Manager was enclosed. It appears that the charge sheeted employees (complainants) were found at the midnight between 14th June and 15th June 1989 near City Post Chowk and they were giving slogans against the officers of the Corporation. It was also alleged that they had taken part in the illegal strike and that they were instigating others to take part in the illegal strike on the next date i.e. 15th June 1989. The said charge sheeted employees submitted their written explanation to the charge sheets denying the charges. It appears that the petitioner held an enquiry in the said charges and imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments for the alleged acts of misconducts. The said employees were aggrieved by the aforesaid order of punishment and, therefore, they filed the aforesaid complaint of unfair labour practice under Section 28 read with Section 30 and Items 5, 9 and 10 of the M.R.T.U. and PULP Act 1971. According to the complainants the punishment imposed on them amounted to unfair labour practice under the aforesaid items. It was also the case of the employees that the petitioner had indulged in the unfair labour practice of discrimination and favouritism as other similarly placed chargesheeted employees were not punished as they belonged to the union which was favoured by the undertaking. The complainants sought a declaration that the punishment imposed on them by way of stoppage of two increments was an unfair labour practice as stated hereinabove. According to the petitioner, the act of participation in an illegal strike and instigation of such illegal strike and gathering in the heart of the city at midnight creating tension in the surrounding area was a serious act on their part deserving extreme punishment of dismissal but a lenient view was taken to impose a minor punishment of stoppage of two increments.
3. Common evidence was adduced before the industrial court by both the sides. The learned Member of the industrial court in his order dated 26th September 1995 held that the enquiry held by the petitioner was not fair and proper. The industrial court directed the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of the charges levelled against the charge sheeted employees to justify the punishment of stoppage of two increments. Accordingly, the petitioner examined one common witness in all the complaints to justify its action of punishment. The complainants employees also examined one common witnesses in all the complaints in rebuttal. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence the industrial court held that the petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practice as alleged by the complainants. The industrial court further passed the consequential common order in all the complaints, which is under challenge before this Court under Articles 14, 16, 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. In support of the petition, Shri Ketkar the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the judgment of the industrial court on the ground that though the misconduct was proved before the industrial court, it has held otherwise. According to the learned Counsel, the industrial court ought to have confirmed the order of punishment by dismissing the complaints. Shri Ketkar submitted that the charge sheeted employees had indulged in the serious act of assembling at the midnight hour in the heart of the city and had created tension by giving slogans against the officers of the undertaking. At that point of time the police had intervened and had taken about 100-150 persons in custody. He also submitted that 16 employees were charge sheeted for the charges levelled against them in the charge sheet. Out of 16 charge sheeted employees, 10 employees had admitted the charges and, therefore, no action was taken against them. He further urged that there was no case of discrimination or favouritism as the remaining six employees had not admitted the charges and, therefore, they were proceeded against under the standing orders by holding a fair and proper enquiry. He further submitted that since the enquiry was quashed and set aside being not fair and proper, the petitioner had proved the charges by adducing evidence before the industrial court to justify the order of punishment of stoppage of increments of the charge sheeted employees. Shri Ketkar submitted that there was in fact no unfair labour practice proved by the complainants. The learned Counsel submitted that the industrial court ought to have dismissed the complaints.
5. I have carefully gone through the well reasoned judgment of the industrial court. The industrial court has considered the pleadings and evidence on record. In my opinion, the industrial court has come to a right conclusion that the petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practice as alleged by the complainants. Though the petitioner was given an opportunity to prove the misconduct levelled against the charge sheeted employees and to justify the order of punishment, in my opinion, the petitioner has miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the charge sheeted employees to justify the punishment. I have carefully gone through the materiel on record independently to find out whether there was any substance in the submissions of Shri Ketkar. The charge sheeted employees were charged of taking part in an illegal strike and instigation of an illegal strike. There are other charges also. There is hardly any evidence before the industrial court to prove the charge of illegality of the strike. The material witnesses examined before the industrial court does not say in what way the strike was illegal as to whether the union had not served a 14 days notice of strike as contemplated under the provisions of the law. There is no evidence at all to show that the employees had proceed on strike on 15th June 1989. There is no evidence to justify other charges levelled against the employees. The charge of going on illegal strike and instigating an illegal strike is indeed a serious charge and, therefore, heavy burden is cast on the employer to prove each and every ingredient of such charge. At the first instance it was the foremost duty of the petitioner to have established that there was a strike on 15th June 1989. There is no evidence to that effect. The witness does sear to say that there was a strike by the employees. He merely says that he saw a board of the union hanging on a tree that the employees would go on strike. Consequently there is absolutely no evidence to hold that such a strike in contravention or in breach of any of the provisions of law had taken place. Both these crucial ingredients are conspicuously absent in the evidence of the petitioner before the industrial court. There is no other evidence in support of the charges levelled against the charge sheeted employees. If the petitioner has failed to prove the charges levelled against the charge sheeted employees in that case, there is absolutely no justification to impose any punishment on the charge sheeted employees. The petitioner has not punished the other 10 employees who were also charge sheeted but had allegedly admitted the charges. This factor is held against the charges. This factor is held against the petitioner by the industrial court to hold the charge of favouritism and discrimination regardless of merits. In any case, since the charges levelled against the charge sheeted employees have not been proved even before the industrial court, the orders of punishment of stoppage of two increments are in breach of the standing orders and, therefore, they attract the provisions of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act as none can be punished unless he is found guilty of any misconduct under the Standing Orders. The Industrial court, in my opinion, has rightly held that the order of punishment imposed on the complainants amounts to unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The Industrial Court has considered and discussed the other aspects of the matter and has given cogent reasons in support of the conclusion. There is absolutely no warrant for this Court to interfere with the said judgment and order of the industrial court under extra the ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, therefore, deserve to be dismissed and the same are dismissed with no costs. Rule is discharged.