1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :-
[a] This petition be allowed.
[b] Be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction and/or order to call for the records and proceedings from the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in BIR Applications No. 40/11 to 48/11 and I.E.S.O. Application No. 1/2012 collectively and after perusing the same be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 24.01.2012 [preliminary suspension order cum inquiry proceeding being contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by an Apex Court.
[c] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the inquiry proceedings conducted by the respondents and stay its operation as well as its continuation."
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners were working as Piecer and Dofer in the Spinning Department of M/s.Soma Textiles and Industries. On account of the change of the automation of the machines, the workers of the Spinning Department filed Application No. 40/2011 to 48/2011 before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. In the said applications, the respondent filed an undertaking that the services of the workmen will not be terminated without following due process of law. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of the said undertaking and ad-interim injunction ordered by the Labour Court, the respondents were threatening the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent had initiated inquiry against them on the ground of alleged charges of leaving the workplace, causing loss to the machines and beating respondent no. 4. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It appears from the impugned order dated 24.01.2012 that the petitioners herein had in connivance with each other stopped the production work while the same was in progress and thereafter proceeded to the main gate of the company where they assaulted one Jayantibhai Chavda who is a representative of the employees Union. Subsequently, the said Jayantibhai Chavda was shifted to Shardaben Hospital for necessary treatment. Considering the conduct of the petitioners, the respondent Company issued the order of suspension pending inquiry. By the said order, the petitioner were directed to furnish their reply within three days from date of receipt of the said notices. The conduct of the petitioners is indisputably very serious in nature. During the course of employment the petitioner had connived with each other and subsequently assaulted him for which, inquired was also admitted to the hospital. In my opinion, the respondent authority has rightly suspended the petitioners, pending inquiry proceedings. The nature of misconduct was such that the petitioners could not be continued in service pending inquiry. Therefore, the respondent authority was completely justified in passing the impugned order of suspension pending inquiry.
4. Further the Labour Court considered the facts of the case and the evidence on record minutely. The Labour Court has specifically observed that the respondent Company has not brought any change in the service conditions of the petitioner and has also undertaken that their services shall not be brought to an end without following due process of law. Now since the impugned order is mainly based on the order of suspension, pending inquiry, I find that the action taken by the respondent is appropriate considering the facts of the case and the evidence on record. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reasons to entertain this petition.
5. Consequently, the petition is dismissed summarily.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top