AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the judgments of the learned Industrial Court passed in Complaint (ULP) No.09/2013 which has been confirmed by the Industrial Court, Amravati in Revision (ULP) No.08/2021 and Revision (ULP) No.01/2023.
The facts as can be seen from the petition are as under :
Alleging misconduct, the respondent herein was served with a charge-sheet on 26.04.2007 and thereafter, a regular enquiry ensued. The charges pertain to continued absenteeism and misconduct on the premises of the employment. Even though, the notices were duly served, the respondent – employee choose not to participate in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, thereafter, held that the charges were proved. In pursuance to that a second show cause notice was issued on 28.12.2007. A reply was filed to the said show cause notice on 11.01.2008 thereby indirectly admitting the said misconduct but attributing it to mental pressure/stress. The Disciplinary Authority dealt with the explanation and vide order dated 17.04.2008 dismissed the respondent from the services of the petitioner.
Being aggrieved by this order, the respondent herein challenged the same before the Labour Court, Amravati by filing Complaint (ULP) No.09/2013.
As can be seen from the judgment of the Labour Court, the petitioner herein i.e. the employer did not file his written statement and the matter proceeded in his absence. No evidence was led on behalf of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court vide judgment dated 16.03.2020 directed reinstatement but without back-wages and the order of dismissal dated 17.04.2008 was set aside.
Being aggrieved, both the employer and the employee filed revisions before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court vide common judgment dated 24.08.2023 allowed the revision filed by the respondent herein, while rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner herein. Both the orders i.e. the judgment of the Labour Court and the common judgment of the Revisional Court are challenged in present petition.
I have heard Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhuyar, learned counsel for the respondent.
Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner points me out the show cause notice and the reply to the said show cause notice where it has been indirectly admitted by the employee that he has committed a misconduct though, he attributes such misconduct to the mental stress which he has undergone. He also points me out the pleadings before the Labour Court wherein it is explicitly stated that the service record of the complainant is clean and unblemished. To contradict this, Mr. Purohit, has pointed me out the extract of the service book which are at page 40 onwards of the petition to show that the said pleading amounts to misinterpretation of facts since the complainant has been previously attributed with several misconduct and various punishments such as suspension and withholding of annual increments was imposed upon him. He, therefore, submits that the judgment of the Labour Court cannot be sustained as it being proceeded on a premise that the averments made in the complaint are a gospel truth.
As far as revisional judgment is concerned, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though a specific request was made to remand the matter, the same has not found favour with the revisional Court and it has decided to dismiss the revision on merits. He, therefore, prays that both the orders being perverse are liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
Per contra, Mr. Bhuyar, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even though, he submits that the enquiry was conducted, he says that the enquiry was a farce and therefore, no proper opportunity was granted to him. He also insists that the enquiry report was not served along with the second show cause notice and neither the employer sought permission to prove the misconduct before the Labour Court. As far as revisional judgment is concerned, he supports the same as far as it dismisses the revision of the present petitioner. Furthermore, he submits that the revisionsal Court in its limited jurisdiction has recorded a finding that the employee was not gainfully employed and therefore, has granted back-wages. In his submissions, the findings, cannot be said to be perverse.
Rival contentions for my consideration.
As can be seen from the judgment of the Labour Court, the same has been proceeded without written statement since for reasons best known to the petitioner herein, it has chosen not to appear before the said Labour Court or file any written statement and/or lead evidence. The entire judgment to say the least, flows on a premise that the averments made in the complaint are true as they stand and since, there is no rebuttal to it, stand proved. In my considered opinion, the said approach to say is unsustainable in law. As far as the judgment of the Industrial in revision is concerned, the same neither discusses the case put forth by the petitioner on merits nor to the prayer for remand.
In absence of any material on record it holds that since no witness was examined, the enquiry is vitiated. As far as granting of back-wages is concerned, the Industrial Court has recorded a finding (which is also without any material) regarding the concerned employee being gainfully employed during the relevant period. In my view, both the judgments cannot be sustained, as they are perverse in nature.
Since the complaint before the Labour Court has not proceeded on merits and is as already stated supra is a judgment in default it would be better if a proper opportunity is granted to the petitioner – corporation to file its pleadings and adduce its evidence, more particularly, regarding the fairness of the enquiry as also the track record of the employee in which several misconducts are shown. Thus, both the judgments of the Labour Court and Industrial Court are quashed and set aside.
The common judgment in Revision (ULP) Nos.08/2021 & 01/2013 are quashed and set aside. Matter bearing Complaint (ULP) No.09/2013 is relegated to the Labour Court, Amravati to decide it within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order. However, the employee being put to unnecessarily loss and inconvenience, the petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation to the respondent No.1 within one month from the date of this order.
It is clarified that the amount of Rs.75,000/- paid as a total compensation would be in addition to the claim of the back-wages put forth by the employee and would not be adjusted or set off in the ultimate decision of the Labour Court.
With these directions, the petition is partly allowed and disposed of. Rule accordingly.