Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Labour Court and Others

M. Katju, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of the Labour Court, Meerut, dated 25.6.1983 Annexure 10 to the writ petition.

Heard learned Counsels for the parties.

The Respondent No. 2 was employed in the Petitioner''s factory at Rishikesh, Dehradun from 7.11.1968. According to the case of the Petitioner during the relevant period in 1974, the employers came to know that various antibiotic capsules and other medicines produced in the Petitioner''s plant were being stolen. Hence searches were made at the gate. On 20.6.1974 at about 1 p.m. the Respondent No. 2 while going out during lunch period was searched in the routine manner at the gate. During this search, five or six capsules of tetracycline fell down on the floor out of the underwear of the Respondent No. 2. It is alleged that when she resumed her underwear, her manner of walking aroused some suspicion and she was again subjected to a thorough search and a polythene bag containing 99 capsules of tetra-cycline was detected and recovered out of her underwear. The Respondent No. 2 tendered her apology orally before the security officer for the theft committed by her and wept before him, and requested to be excused. The Chief Security Officer expressed his inability to excuse her and told her to contact the Departmental Head in this connection. Finding that she was not being excused, she gave a statement that only two capsules were recovered from her possession and not 99. The Chief Security Officer sent his report to the Management giving details about the incident and the Management on receipt of the report of the Chief Security Officer issued a charge-sheet dated 29.6.1971 and suspended the workman concerned pending enquiry.

The workman submitted her explanation dated 22.7.1974 but the Management found the explanation to be not satisfactory and instituted a domestic enquiry.

In this domestic enquiry, it is alleged that the Respondent No. 2 was given full opportunity of hearing and thereafter the Enquiry Officer found the workman to be guilty and on his report the service of the Respondent No. 2 was terminated vide order dated 28.11.1974. An industrial dispute was raised by the Respondent No. 2 and it was referred to the Labour Court which has given the impugned award dated 25.6.1983. Hence this petition.

The Labour Court framed certain preliminary issues and decided those issues in favour of the employer vide order dated 27.8.1976. Annexure 6 to the petition. In this order, the Labour Court has held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and the Respondent No. 2 was given full opportunity of hearing. The Labour Court also held that the findings of the enquiry officer were not perverse.

However, in the subsequent award dated 25.6.1983 the Labour Court has decided in favour of the Respondent No. 2 and directed her re instatement without back wages from 28.11.1974 to the date of the award.

I have carefully perused the impugned award and in my opinion, it is based on conjectures and surmises. The Labour Court had already in its order dated 27.8.1976 held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and the findings of the enquiry officer were not perverse. It is, therefore, surprising that the Labour Court in the impugned award has held that the enquiry officer did not act properly in not allowing some questions to be put by the workman in the enquiry. This approach of the Labour Court appears to be contradictory.

Moreover, the Labour Court has held that since only 5 or 6 capsules were found on the person of Respondent No. 2 during the first search, hence there was no question of a second search. In my opinion, there is no bar to a second search or even a third or more searches. It is difficult, to understand the reasoning of the Labour Court in this respect. In my opinion, the Labour Court has on the basis of conjectures and surmises observed that there was no question of a second search. There is no finding that the employer was inimical to the Respondent No. 2 or that the Chief Security Officer has any reason to send a false report against the Respondent No. 2. There is nothing to show that the person who searched the Respondent No. 2 was inimical to her and hence a false report was submitted against her.

The Labour Court has further held that the allegation that the Respondent No. 2 again came at 2 p.m. to the factory and was searched again could not be believed because her husband was also an employee of the factory and she would have come with her husband. In my opinion, this again shows that the Labour Court has acted on conjectures and surmises. There was no reason why Respondent No. 2 could not come without her husband to the Chief Security Officer. There also does not seem to be any reason to disbelieve the version of the Chief Security Officer that the Respondent No. 2 admitted her guilt.

The award dated 25.6.1986 is bristling with conjectures and surmises and hence cannot be sustained. Merely because the earlier conduct of the Respondent No. 2 has been good does not entitle her to reinstatement because, as held by the Supreme Court in Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishna Bihari JT 1996 (3) SC 96, the only punishment for such misconduct is dismissal.

Although this Court ordinarily does not interfere with findings of fact, in my opinion, if such finding is based on conjectures and surmises the Court can certainly interfere with the impugned order.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award of the Labour Court, Meerut, dated 25.6.1983 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court to give a fresh decision after considering the evidence on record and after hearing the arguments of the learned representatives for the parties but without allowing the parties to lead any further evidence. The Labour Court will decide the matter within six months of production of a certified copy of this order.