AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing the award dated 04.02.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner-workman and in favour of the respondent-management, and the termination of his services was held to be proper and justified.
The facts of the case, as pleaded, are that the petitioner was working as an Operator with respondent No.1 at wages of Rs.1,900/- per month for more than four years, and that his services were terminated illegally with effect from 14.10.1999 without any charge-sheet, enquiry or show cause notice. An industrial dispute was raised by the workman, which was not adjudicated in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereagainst, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the domestic enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the list of witnesses and documents, as well as the enquiry report, were not supplied to the petitioner; that the petitioner's repeated requests for change of the Enquiry Officer, were declined, as was his application (Ex.W-7) that the Enquiry Officer was pressuring him to settle his account and leave the company; that the venue of the enquiry, being the premises of the respondent, and the witnesses, being employees of the management, vitiated the fairness of the proceedings; and that the legal issue framed vide order dated 14.05.2009, was never decided by the learned Tribunal, thereby causing prejudice to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes the petition and submits that the impugned Award suffers from no illegality or perversity; that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to defend himself in the domestic enquiry, was supplied the list of witnesses and documents as well as the enquiry report, cross-examined the management's witnesses and led four witnesses of his own in defence; that the petitioner's own admissions in cross-examination belie his plea that the enquiry was unfair; and that the finding of misconduct, being based on a fair appreciation of the evidence on record, calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
It comes out from the impugned award that the learned Tribunal, on appraisal of the evidence, returned the finding that the Enquiry Officer, was not an employee of the respondent, and that mere payment of his fee by the management, in the absence of any cogent evidence to establish otherwise, did not vitiate the enquiry. It was further found that the petitioner had himself led four witnesses in his defence and cross-examined the management’s witnesses, which belied any prejudice on account of the venue of the enquiry, and that the petitioner’s own admission in cross-examination, that the enquiry proceedings of each date bore his signature, falsified his assertion that the list of witnesses, documents and the enquiry report had not been supplied to him.
On the question of misconduct, the learned Tribunal held that the charge of using abusive and filthy language against, and threatening, a superior officer stood duly proved, and that such conduct constituted grave misconduct warranting dismissal, and that the plea of victimisation on account of trade union activity was unsupported by evidence. Accordingly, the reference was answered against the petitioner-workman and the termination of his services was upheld as legal and proper.
The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity in the domestic enquiry, that no prejudice was caused to him on account of the identity or venue of the Enquiry Officer, and that the charge of misconduct stood duly proved, are pure findings of fact, based on a fair appreciation of the evidence on record, including the petitioner's own admissions in cross-examination.
It is well settled that this Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India over awards of Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals, does not sit in appeal over findings of fact, nor does it re-appreciate the evidence to test whether a different view was possible; interference is warranted only where a finding is shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, despite his able assistance, has been unable to point to any such infirmity in the impugned Award. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on a fair appreciation of the evidence on record and call for no interference.
Consequently, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.