LRs of Ram Kishan / Smt. Geeta vs Manager, Gangapur Cooperative Spinning Mills

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.