AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Ram Kishan has approached this Court seeking to assail the judgment cum award Annex.5 dated 23.10.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara in Industrial Dispute Case No.5/93 rejecting the labour dispute instituted at the instance of the petitioner workman against the termination of his services by the respondent employer vide order dated 23.9.1988.
Owing to death of Sh.Ram Kishan during pendency of the writ petition, his legal heirs were taken on record.
The petitioner late Sh.Ram Kishan was employed as a Sider in the Ring Frame Section of the respondent spinning
Mills. He was served a charge-sheet with the allegation that the Section Incharge caught him while committing an irregularity in the winding process and when the petitioner was advised not to do so, he assaulted the Incharge at the workplace. The petitioner denied the charges. However, the employer conducted a domestic enquiry and dismissed Sh.Ram Kishan from service by order dated 23.9.1988.
Ram Kishan challenged his removal by raising a labour dispute which upon failure of conciliation proceeding was referred to the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (referred to herein after as "the ID Act ").
In the proceedings before the Labour Court, the petitioner filed his claim with the averment that the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet were false and fabricated. The petitioner never assaulted the Shift Supervisor. The domestic enquiry was not conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The principles of natural justice were not adhered to. He was not heard before issuance of the order of dismissal. In the alternative, it was pleaded that even if the petitioner was considered technically guilty of the charge, then also, penalty of dismissal from service was extremely harsh and not commensurate with the gravity of the charges.
The respondent employer filed reply to the claim petition wherein a specific plea was taken that the Shift Incharge lodged a complaint that when he caught the petitioner working in an improper fashion and asked him not to do so, the petitioner assaulted him at the work place.
The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet and domestic enquiry was conducted in an absolutely fair and lawful manner. The Shift Incharge Shri Ram Narain Garg whom the petitioner assaulted was examined in the enquiry and he substantiated the allegations and thus, the order of dismissal of the petitioner was perfectly justified.
The Tribunal framed an issue as to whether dismissal of the petitioner from the services of the respondent mills by order dated 23.9.1988 was justified or not.
Before the Tribunal, the petitioner raised an argument that the charge was not proved against him. No medical report was produced in support of the allegation that the petitioner assaulted the Shift Supervisor and thus, the order of dismissal of the petitioner passed in the domestic enquiry was without any basis and should be quashed and set
aside. The said contention was opposed by the employer.
The Tribunal after appreciating the entire material on record, held that Ram Narain Garg the Shift Supervisor who attributed misbehaviour and assault at work place to the petitioner, had no animosity with the petitioner. His evidence was held to be trustworthy. The charge that the workman misbehaved with and assaulted his superior at the workplace was considered to be of grave and serious nature and consequently, the Tribunal held that there was no illegality in the order of dismissal dated 23.9.1988.
Thereupon, the labour claim was rejected by award Annex.5 dated 23.10.2000. Hence, this writ petition.
Shri J.K. Gehlot, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the charge attributed to the petitioner of misbehaving with the Shift Supervisor was
absolutely false and fabricated. The allegation of assault was not corroborated by any medical report or FIR. The eye witnesses who were named by the complainant were not examined in the domestic enquiry and thus, the Tribunal should not have believed on the uncorroborated testimony of the Shift Supervisor. He thus urged that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the petitioner's claim petition is illegal and arbitrary and should be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.
Per contra, Shri Bhurani learned counsel for the respondent employer vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. He urged that the Labour Tribunal after appreciating the entire evidence and other material available on record has recorded as specific finding of fact that evidence of the Shift Supervisor Ram Narain Garg was convincing and clinching. The petitioner workman was found guilty of assaulting his superior officer at the workplace and thus, the only justified penalty in these circumstances was to direct his dismissal. He thus, supported the impugned award and urged that the writ petition should be dismissed as being devoid of merit.
I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the material available on record.
Suffice it to say that the petitioner has nowhere
alleged that Ram Narain Garg was having any enmity or bone to grind against him. There was no cause whatsoever as to why the Shift Supervisor Ram Narain Garg would file a false complaint against the workman. The basic thrust of argument advanced by Shri Gehlot was that the allegation of assault was not corroborated by medical evidence. In this regard, a specific question was put to Ram Narain Garg, the Shift Supervisor, to which he replied that he received superficial lip injury in the assault. He applied some disinfectant on the injury and there was no cause for him to go for a medical examination. No reason was shown to disbelieve this statement of the Shift Supervisor. The argument that the labours Ramu and Ladu Singh eye witnesses of the incident, were not examined in evidence is of no relevance whatsoever so as to interfere in the findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence. The Tribunal held that if the employer did not choose to examine these witnesses, the petitioner could have examined them in defence in order to prove his case.
Findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned award after appreciating the evidence cannot be termed to be unjust, arbitrary or perverse. The impugned award Annex.5 dated 23.10.2000 does not suffer from any illegality or shortcoming either factual or legal so as to require any
interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Consequently, the instant writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost.