Chandigarh Transport Undertaking vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Another

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The impugned award dated 05.05.2010 passed in the present case by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, UT, Chandigarh in reference No. 50 of 2005 allowing the reference and quashing the order of punishment dated 29.09.2000 deserves to be quashed on the short ground that statutory remedies available to the workman against the order of punishment were not availed by him although statutory appeal and further revision is provided under rules notified under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, that is, The Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 make provision for appeal under Rule 16 while Rule 15 thereof specifies the orders against which appeal lies. The learned Single Judge of this Court followed the decision of the The Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Central Division, Bangalore Vs. G.M.D. Murthy, to hold that where statutory appeal is not exhausted, the matter would have to go back for decision in statutory appeal since that is an alternative remedy for the purposes of reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the ID Act").

When notice of motion was issued in this case on 20.12.2010 the learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order:-

Counsel submits that the petitioner ought to have been given liberty to proceed with the issue from the stage where some infirmity was noticed, even if the procedure adopted was found to be in violation of the requirement of rules or principle of natural justice. In support, he would refer to the observations made in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc., Notice of motion to this limited extent for 15.3.2011.

The charge against the petitioner was of procuring employment on the strength of a fake certificate. Charge sheet was issued. A domestic enquiry was held. This Court had called upon Mr. N.K. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the Chandigarh Transport to file an affidavit of the Divisional Manager, CTU to specify the consequences of the punishment order dated 29.09.2000. In response, affidavit has been filed in which Paras 3 and 4 it has been stated as follows:-

That the competent authority passed an order dated 29.09.2000 against the Respondent No. 2 whereby his pay was reduced to the minimum of time scale for a period of five years with further order that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period this reduction will have the affect of postponing his future increment of pay. Consequently, in the year of 2000 the Respondent No. 2 was at the pay scale of Rs. 4260/- and he was reduced lo Rs. 3120/- which he was earning in the year of 1995 and then the pay scale of Rs. 3120/- remained in existence till 01.10.2005. In the year of 2005 his pay scale was reached at Rs. 4260/-. During the year of 2000 to 2005 the Respondent No. 2 did not earn any increment in terms of the order dated 29.09.2000 that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction. The Respondent No. 2 was not granted thereafter the increment of 2000 to 2005 in terms of the directions entailed in order dated 29.09.2000 that this reduction will have the affect of postponing his future increments.

That in the nutshell, the Respondent No. 2 was placed at the minimum of the pay scale i.e. Rs. 3120/- in the pay scale of Rs. 3120-100-3220-110-3660-120-4260-140-4400-150-5000-5160 from Rs. 4260/- and he drew the same basic pay for next five years i.e. Time Scale punishment period.

It may not be necessary to deal with the history of the litigation prior to reference and of the proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and thereafter to the Supreme Court. We are presently concerned with the award passed by the Labour Court and published in the Gazette on 05.05.2010, especially keeping in view the limited issue upon which notice of motion was issued in this case and the question of applicability of the principles of law enunciated in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc., the respondent-employee had complained before this Court that no show cause notice was issued to him before passing of the order of punishment reducing his pay to the minimum of the time scale for a period of five years etc. The show cause notice was based on a disagreement note since the enquiry proceedings had gone in favour of the employee.

I called upon Mr. Joshi to take instructions if this was true. He has produced before me the record. The show cause notice is dated 28.05.1998 containing the dissent note. The respondent-Devinder Singh, Store Keeper had indeed submitted his written reply to the show cause notice. However, in the reply to the show cause notice, in the opening paragraph he has recorded the following words:-

Though I have not been supplied any note of dissent and I reserve my right to file further reply. If necessary, on its supply to me, I submit my representation as under.

Therefore, without joining issue or making any comment it would suffice for this Court in order to secure the ends of justice to say that the fault, if any, can be said to have occurred at the stage of non-supply of dissent note upon which the employee had reserved his right to file further reply. That point would be the most appropriate for remittance of this matter to the punishing authority to redo the exercise from the stage of serving of the note of disagreement on the employee together with the copy of the enquiry report and the evidence collected at the enquiry by initiating fresh proceedings from the stage where the fault occurred.

The respondent-employee would now be served with the dissent note etc. as above and will be given permission to inspect record and such of the relevant record as he needs to defend himself would be supplied to him in photocopy at his own expense or if rule permits at the expense of the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking so that the employee has an effective opportunity to defend himself from the stage of reply to the dissent note. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated. The impugned award is quashed. The procedure to be followed thereafter would be as ordered above. On conclusion of the remand proceedings fresh orders would have to be passed by the punishing authority. Against those orders, in case they are adverse to the employee he would have right of appeal etc. under the rules. However, on remand the pay and emoluments of the respondent-employee would be kept in status quo as obtaining from and as a result of the original punishment order which would continue to operate till the finalization of the matter at the administrative end.