AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Nayak, J.—Since this Writ petition is directed against an order made by the first respondent Labour Court in an interlocutory application, the Court felt it just and necessary to hear the learned Counsel for the authorities and dispose of the writ petition, though the W.V.M.P. No. 10345/95 filed in this writ petition was posted for hearing and orders today. Accordingly the learned counsel for the parties were heard.
The second respondent is a workman and the petitioner is the Management. The petitioner-Management held a domestic enquiry against the second respondent against alleged misconduct and after conducting enquiry removed the second respondent as a measure of punishment under the Regulations. Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority the second respondent raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No. 741/93 which is pending before the first respondent Labour Court. In the claim statement filed by the second respondent-workman the second respondent questioned the validity of the domestic enquiry held by the disciplinary authority. When that preliminary issued was posted before the Industrial Court on 18-11-1994 the second respondent workman conceded that the domestic enquiry held by the petitioner-Management was valid and correct. Accordingly the Labour Court ordered that the domestic enquiry held by the petitioner-Management was valid. Thereafterwards the second respondent presented an application on 17-12-1994 Which reads thus :
BEFORE THE HON''BLE COUNT III AT HYDERABAD I.A. NO. 452 OF 1994 in I.D. No. 741 of 1993 Between Mrs. Ch. Subba Lakshmi Petitioner/Petitioner. and M/s. Electronic Corporation of Respondent/Respondent India Ltd. AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER
I, Ch. Subba Lakshmi, w/o Ch. Papaiah, 39 years Ex-ECIL employee, resident of 16-2-51/0, Akbarbagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state on oath as follows :
I am the petitioner herein and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case.
I humbly submit that in my claim statement I took the plea
(a) That I was forced to admit the alleged theft of some materials of the company;
(b) That I agreed to sign the said admission not drafted by the Security Officer on the assurance given to me that the Company would take a lenient view of the charge and let me off with minor punishment as in the case of many others earlier who were charged with identical offences;
(c) That a couple of the Union Leaders had also persuaded me to admit the charge with similar assurance;
(d) That it was in pursuance of the above assurances I hod admitted the charge both in my explanation to the charge sheet and in the domestic enquiry;
(e) That contrary to the assurances I was issued with show - cause notice of removal from service and
(f) That I had exposed the above things in my explanation to the show cause notice with the hope that
(g) The Management would enquire into the matter further to know the truth
The above matters were not before the domestic enquiry which was more formal in view of my admission. Now that I have challenged the impugned order of removal, it is just and necessary that the Hon''ble Labour Court should itself enquiry the truth about them before passing an award in the I.D. in the interest of justice.
In the circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the Hon''ble Labour Court may be pleased to permit me to adduce additional evidence on the above matters, detailed in the sub-paras (a) to (g) of para 2 by the security official and Union Leaders of the Respondent under Rule No. 15 of I.D. (Central) Rules, 1957 and Rule No. 17 of A.P.I.D. Rules, 1958.
Be pleased to consider, Deponent. Sworn and signed this 17th Dec. 1994, at Hyderabad. Before me".
As could be seen from this application the second respondent seeks permission of the Labour Court to adduce additional evidence on the matters detailed in sub-paras (a) to (g) of para No. 2 of the security official and the Union Leaders of the Respondent under Rule 15 of I.D. (Central) Rules, 1957 and Rule No. 17 of A.P.I.D. Rules, 1958.
The Labour Court by its order dt. 20-2-1995 ordered the said application and permitted the second respondent-workman to adduce additional evidence. The Management being aggrieved by the said order has filed the present writ petition.
Shri Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner-Management submitted two fold arguments while assailing the validity of the order made by the Industrial Court. The learned counsel firstly contended that by virtue of the proviso to Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short "the Act", the Labour Court is not Justified in permitting the second respondent to lead fresh evidence. Elaborating his argument the learned Counsel submitted that the workman having conceded the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management to be correct and valid on 18-11-1994 she was estopped from making any grievance and seeking permission to lead fresh evidence. According to the learned counsel in an indirect way the second respondent is assailing the validity of the domestic enquiry while at the same time admitting the domestic enquiry to be correct. The stand taken by the workman on 18-11-1994 and the stand taken by the workman in her application dated 17-12-1994 are contrary to each other. On the other hand Sri K. Prabhakara Rao, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 contended that u/s 11-A of the Act under certain circumstance it is permissible for the Industrial Court to permit the workman to lead fresh evidence and he would maintain that the Labour Court is justified in passing the impugned order. The learned counsel in support of his submission would place reliance on Indian Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. and Another Vs. Their Workmen, para 18. The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. The Management and Others, and Ideal Jawa (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C. Madan Mohan and Another, .
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties I find that case is made out to interfere in this matter and the writ petition is entitled to be allowed. The simple question before the Court is whether the points now permitted to be agitated by leading fresh evidence were available to the delinquent workman before the domestic enquiry was initiated against her. At the time of hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent made available to the Court the reply dated 29-6-1992 submitted by the second respondent to the show-cause notice issued by the Management which reads as follows :
Hyderabad
Dt. 29-6-92.
"TO
Shri J.S. Bhatia
Head-CEG
ECIL, Hyderabad-500 762.
Respected Sir,
Sub: Explanation for your notice dt. 17-6-92-Reg.
I was initially appointed as Tradesman ''A'' Trainee in 1972. I was promoted as Tradesman ''E'' in the year 1985. Since the inception of my service I have been discharging my duties without any complaint whatsoever from my superiors. On 2-5-92, while I was returning from my duty at 14.05 hrs; I was stopped at Security check and some materials were found in my bag. I have stated to the Security personnel that I have no knowledge about the said material and I never kept myself in the vanity bag. However, the security personnel threatened me that they will see that I will be dismissed from ''service'' by implicating me in serious charges, unless I sign on the statements. As I was a lady they told me that they will let me go out if I own the responsibility. In these circumstances, I have no option except to sign on the letter written by Security Personnel to avoid further embarrassment.
Thereafter I received the charge-sheet and I was suspended pending the alleged enquiry. I submit that I was upset on receipt of the said charge-sheet as it was the first time in my 20 years unblemished service to receive such an adverse remark. Then I was given an understanding that they will drop the proceedings by imposing a minor penalty provided I own the responsibility. Accordingly I have submitted a representation requesting to take a lenient view. However to my surprise, I received a notices stating that an oral enquiry will be conducted. I could not attend that enquiry on 14-5-92 due to ill-health. I have attended the enquiry on 26-5-92 and to my surprise the enquiry officer straight away asked me whether I am ready to adduce evidence on my behalf, whereas I was under the impression that the first evidence will be adduced on behalf of the management to substantiate the charged alleges against me. I have stated that I have no knowledge about the process of enquiry and I have requested to explain me what is to be done by me. However, the enquiry officer told me that I need not to do anything, except to sign on the statements prepared by him and I was assured that he would recommend for imposing minor penalty provided I co-operate with him in completing the enquiry on the same day.
As I was already under mental stress and to avoid further embarrassment, I have signed wherever the enquiry officer directed me to sign. The enquiry officer informed me that I can leave the office and he will close the enquiry by recommending the imposition of the minor penalty. To my surprise received a ''Show cause notice'' from you office asking my explanation on the enquiry report. I humbly state that as mentioned above the findings of the enquiry officer holding me guilty of the charges alleged against me are thoroughly baseless and without having any evidence in support of the charges. It is not true to say that I was given opportunity to appoint Defence Counsel. No question were put by the enquiry officer as alleged in the enquiry report. He only obtained my signature stating that the enquiry will be closed and there is no necessity of adducing any further evidence and obtained my signatures on the papers.
The enquiry officer has never shown the alleged material during the course of enquiry and I never identified the said material as stated by the enquiry officer. The fact is that there is discrepancy in the description of the material as shown in the charge-sheet and in the enquiry report. This clearly shows that the confession given by me and identification of the said materials is created one by taking advantage of my innocence about the process of the enquiry.
As stated above, I never admitted the allege charges against me and I never stated that no assistance of the co-employees is required. On the other hand I was under the impression that the enquiry was closed as nobody was examined before me to substantiate the charges. I have no Knowledge about the formalities to be followed in the process of enquiry and I would not have refused to have assistance of some co-employee as I am not aware of the proceedings.
Now I humbly stated that I have unblemished record for 20 years service and I was appreciated by every superior in the course of my employment in ECIL and I have no adverse remarks throughout my career in all my ''Confidential Reports''. Unfortunately, I was made scapegoat by some unknown persons for the reasons best known to them. If the due opportunity is given to me I will proved that I am innocent and I am not guilty of the charges alleged against me. It is relevant to bring to your kind notice this is first time some allegations were made against me in my 20 years span of service and I request you to consider my previous record in ECIL and exonerate me from the charges as the enquiry alleged to have been conducted against me is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and there is no positive evidence adduced to substantiate the charge alleged against me. I further state that if the opportunity is given to me to explain all the aforesaid facts personally, I would be ever grateful to you.
Thanking you and awaiting for your kind favourable action.
Yours faithfully,
(Sd). Ch. Subbalaxmi".
As could be seen from this reply the second respondent complained that her statements were obtained forcible by the security officer. It is also complained that during the course of enquiry officer told the second respondent that if the second respondent could sign the statement prepared by him he would recommend for imposing minor penalty in the second respondent. If the allegation of the petitioner that the security officer coerced and threatened the second respondent and obtained adverse statement from her this defence should have been found a place in the explanation/reply to the charge memo. Surprisingly it does not find a place in that document. Even the points raised now in clause (a) to (g) in para 2 of the present application are quite contrary in many respects to what is stated in the reply dated 29-6-1992. The second respondent having failed to take such a defence at the earliest stage which was available to her cannot now be permitted to raise such an issue for the first time before the Industrial Court particularly after having conceded that the domestic enquiry held by the petitioner-Management was valid and proper. In the present application the second respondent has not made any grievance as regards the enquiry officer is concerned but she chooses to make serious allegations against him in her reply dated 29-6-1992. Therefore in the absence of her request to prove the fact that the enquiry officer coerced her to sign certain papers during the course of enquiry there is no question of permitting her to prove that fact before the Industrial Court. I think that there is absolutely no necessity nor any warrant to refer to the several decisions referred by the leaned Counsel for the second respondent. In my humble and considered opinion they have no bearing on the issue in question. Therefore I have not referred to those cases individually.
In the result and for the foregoing reasons the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. In the facts and the circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs.