JUDGMENT 1. These two petitions arise from order passed by the Labour Court dismissing the complaint filed by the Petitioner and dismissal of the revision by the Industrial Court. A common inquiry was conducted and the charges against these two Petitioners are more or less similar and arise from one incident. Therefore, these two petitions are taken together. The learned counsel for the parties have also argued these two petitions together. 2. The Petitioner R. Mada Swamy in Writ Petition No.3815 of 1998 and Tanaji Yadav in Writ Petition No.3816 of 1998 were working with the respondent Indian Express Newspaper Private Limited. Mr Mada Swamy was working as Rotary Baller and Tanaji Yadav was working as Stores Mazdoor, (referred to as the Workmen) were issued a charge-sheet on 7 December 1982. The charge against the Workmen was as under: “That for the past few days Mr. Narayan Pujari, Mr. Mohamed Kasim U. Kha, Mr. A.Ramraj etc. were working during recess break, accepting food allowance and also working overtime as per the requirements of the Superiors. You and other supports of MGKU used to tease, mock and ridicule them by saying that they would get dowry as they had eaten Company's biryani, that they are the chamchas of Management etc. Also that you and other used to stare at them and stared that they would be taught a lesson after 1.12.1982, when A.Ramraj, Mr. Mohamed Kasim U. Khan, Mr. Narayan Pujari were coming for work, in the night shift by local train starting from Mankhurd at about 9.25 p.m. to Bombay V.T. and when the local train halted at Gowandi station, Shri Tanaji M.Yadav from the station pointed out at the three person i.e. A.Ramraj, Mr. Narayan Pujari etc., sitting in the train to about 10-15 persons. Immediately the 10-15 persons assaulted the three persons with Soda water bottles, iron balls, iron rod and knives and mercilessly beat them up causing severe injuries on hands and other parts of the body, due to when the above persons had to take medical treatment and could not attend their duties.” 3. An inquiry was instituted. The Workmen engaged representatives to defend themselves. The inquiry officer submitted report. Both the Workmen were found guilty in the inquiry and accordingly were dismissed from services. An inquiry was instituted. The Workmen engaged representatives to defend themselves. The inquiry officer submitted report. Both the Workmen were found guilty in the inquiry and accordingly were dismissed from services. The Workmen thereafter filed a complaint under Item 1(a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 complaining of unfair labour practices on the part of the respondent. 4. In the Labour Court it was the case of Mr. R.Mada Swamy that during the proceedings of the inquiry his wife was unwell at native place and also there was a death of his child after childbirth and he could not attend the inquiry. Mr. Mada Swamy contended in the complaint that he returned to Maharashtra on 27 March 1984 and inspite of the letter written by him, the inquiry was not deferred. He submitted that the inquiry officer Mr. Mulla had given an inquiry report in the favour of Workmen and inspite of this position, inquiry was held against him and he was dismissed from service. He also contended that the incident which allegedly took place on 4 December 1982 cannot be attributed to him as he had already reached the office and he does not travel on the same route where the incident took place. According to him no reasonable opportunity was given to him to defend himself in the inquiry and it is out of spite that the respondent Management took action against him since he refused to join Union favourable to the Management. 5. In the complaint filed by Tanaji Yadav he more or less adopted the same stand as of Mr. Mada Swamy. He denied his involvement in the incident of December 1982 and stated that there is no role attributed to him neither there is any witness for the role attributed to him in the incident. He also made a grievance regarding the unfairness of the inquiry and the fact that the inquiry officers report supports the Workmen. 6. The learned Labour Court went into detail about the fairness of the inquiry. The learned Labour Court found that the Workmen engaged as many as six Workmen representing them. Full opportunity was given to them to lead evidence, cross-examining witnesses and it is the Workmen who chose not to avail of the opportunity. 6. The learned Labour Court went into detail about the fairness of the inquiry. The learned Labour Court found that the Workmen engaged as many as six Workmen representing them. Full opportunity was given to them to lead evidence, cross-examining witnesses and it is the Workmen who chose not to avail of the opportunity. The Labour Court found that the inquiry officer had infact prepared a draft inquiry report which was tried to be relied upon by the Workmen and he had tendered a final report to the Management in which he found the Workmen guilty. The Labour Court also found that the incident that took place in local train was narrated by one of the victim -a workman of the Management in which he named Mr. Mada Swamy as guilty. It was stated by victim workman that Tanaji showed the assailant where the victim Workmen were sitting. The Labour Court also held that incident which took place in the local train had causal relationship with the employment. Having found that the allegations which were proved against the Workmen in the inquiry being serious, the Labour Court declined to interfere with the action of dismissal. A revision was carried by the Workmen. In the revision, the Industrial Tribunal found that there was no error committed by the Labour Court and dismissed the revision application. 7. I heard Mr. Rajiv Patil, Senior advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Talasania, Senior advocate for Respondent. 8. Mr. Rajiv Patil, Senior advocate submitted that as far as Tanaji Yadav is concerned, there is no allegation against him that he actually carried out the assault. He submitted that even assuming the charge to be taken as it is, the charge speaks of unknown persons and does not refer to Mr. Mada Swamy. This argument cannot be accepted. The charge did say unknown assailants assaulted some of the Workmen of the Management when they were travelling to work, but during the inquiry proceedings of the victim workmen deposed that it was Mr. Mada Swamy amongst others who was involved in the assault, and Mr. Tanaji Yadav pointed towards the victim. The inquiry proceedings are not akin to a criminal trial. Even though, Mr. Yadav did not actually assault the victim, it was obvious that he was part of the plan to intimidate and terrorise victim workmen. Mada Swamy amongst others who was involved in the assault, and Mr. Tanaji Yadav pointed towards the victim. The inquiry proceedings are not akin to a criminal trial. Even though, Mr. Yadav did not actually assault the victim, it was obvious that he was part of the plan to intimidate and terrorise victim workmen. Thus, merely because he did not actually carry out the assault is not a ground to take a lenient view as he actively participated in the incident. As regards the charge-sheet specifying unknown persons is concerned, it may be so, but during the inquiry it was brought on record that both Mr. Mada Swamy and Mr. Yadav were involved in it. Once that was established it cannot be said that the findings must fail on that ground. The Workmen were put to notice of this charge. 9. Mr. Patil then assailed the finding of the Court as regarding the fairness of the inquiry. The Labour Court considered this aspect in detail. It analysed almost every step that took place during the inquiry proceedings. It has been rightly pointed out by Mr. Talasania, that both the Workmen had engaged as many as six representatives and it is surprising that six of them remained absent on certain dates. It is not fault of the Management if the Workmen chose not to participate in the inquiry diligently. There was no active prohibition from cross-examining the witnesses. The Management led evidence of witnesses, inquiry officer stepped in witness box. In such circumstances, the Workmen ought to have been more diligent in prosecuting the inquiry. Mr. Mada Swamy seems to have returned to Mumbai moment the inquiry was completed. He was out of Mumbai exactly during the period of inquiry. The Courts below found that nothing is produced to justify his absence, such as medical certificates. Other workers who were charged were fully aware of the proceedings and consequently Mr. Mada Swamy was as well. This conduct on the part of Mr. Mada Swamy appears to be to avoid attending the inquiry so that the challenge can be levied subsequently. 10. Mr. Patil then submitted that the incident which occurred on local train did not occur at workplace. It may be so but it had a causal relationship with the employment. This conduct on the part of Mr. Mada Swamy appears to be to avoid attending the inquiry so that the challenge can be levied subsequently. 10. Mr. Patil then submitted that the incident which occurred on local train did not occur at workplace. It may be so but it had a causal relationship with the employment. The victim Workmen were on their way to work using public transport and if during their commuting to work they were assaulted, it would naturally put fear in them to go to work and therefore, it cannot be said that the incident is totally unrelated to work. Both the Courts have rightly appreciated legal position in this regard. 11. As regards controversy surrounding the inquiry report is concerned, the inquiry officer has stepped in witness box and has deposed that what was sought to be relied upon by the Workmen was a draft report and final report was something else. Both the Courts have found that the final report recommended dismissal of the Workmen. What is material is the final report and not the draft report. Even assuming the inquiry officer's report was in favour of the Workmen it does not bind the punishing authority. No capital can be made out of this position. 12. Therefore it has been duly proved in the inquiry that both Mr. Mada Swamy and Mr. Yadav took part in the incident of beating up the other workers of respondent Management with soda water bottles, sticks, etc. in public transport and these victims had to be hospitalised. There is a concurrent finding of fact accepting this factual position. It is not for me to re-appreciate the evidence and to come to a contrary finding. When the Workmen indulge in acts such as these, no fault can be found in the Management in dismissing them from services. No case is made out for interference in the impugned orders. Both the petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged.