AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Debangsu Basak, J. - The challenge in the present writ petition is directed towards order No. 71 dated June 16, 2003 passed by the 4th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. According to the petitioner, the order of the Tribunal is perverse. The Tribunal ought not to have directed setting aside the order of dismissal. Reliance has been placed on a judgement reported in 1972 Vol. 1 Labour Law Journal, page 180 (Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. v. Ludh Budh Singh) in support of such contention.
None appears for the respondent.
An order passed by the Industrial Tribunal is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. The order is reasoned. It deals with the validity of domestic enquiry held against the delinquent worker.
The delinquent worker has a history with regard to his dealings in management. He was initially appointed as a Counter Attendant by the petitioner. On the allegation of possession of three Bangladeshi currency notes of Rs. 100/- each, he was charge-sheeted in 1992. He had contested the disciplinary proceedings in respect thereof. The management had suspended him with effect from March 27, 1992 with regard to such incident. The management thereafter penalised him by way of stoppage three years increments and demoting him. The petitioner had made a representation against such decision. The management did not pay any heed thereto. The petitioner had moved two writ petitions before the Hon''ble High Court. One of such writ petition was disposed of by holding that such matter may be taken up by the Tribunal or the Labour Court as the disputes are covered under the Industrial Disputes Act. The representation of the delinquent worker for permission to participate in a training was directed to be considered by the concerned authority. The management did not allow this delinquent to participate in the training programme. The delinquent initially approached the Tribunal for redressal of the punishment meted out to him. The Tribunal, however, had held that he did not have jurisdiction. The delinquent thereafter filed a suit before the Sealdah Court being Title Suit No.252 of 1997 challenging the order of the management relating the stoppage of increments.
The management thereafter issued the second charge-sheet in 1995 alleging supply of dirty beakers and sleeping during working hours. The delinquent worker was suspended. The management ultimately lifted the domestic enquiry in connection with the second charge-sheet.
According to the delinquent, he became aware of the second charge-sheet after receiving the order of dismissal dated March 15, 1999.
The third charge-sheet was issued against the delinquent on September 20, 1995. The third charge-sheet was in respect of an alleged incident of alleged supply of croissants to a flight.
According to the delinquent, the third charge-sheet is baseless and motivated, pre-determined to harass the delinquent after the expiry of two months of the alleged incident. The delinquent was placed under suspension from September 20, 1995.
The validity of the domestic enquiry relating to the third charge-sheet came up for consideration before the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal had disposed of such challenge to the domestic enquiry by holding that the management had acted in a motivated manner. It was guilty of victimisation, unfair labour practice and mala fide intention. The report of the enquiry officer was found to be perverse and not binding upon the concerned workman. The Industrial Tribunal in the impugned order has given detailed reasons for arriving at such conclusions. It has noted that the prosecution had failed to any examine any witness establishing the complaint. It has noted that several persons were involved in the preparation of the food tray which was ultimately placed before the passengers on board the flight. It has also noted that, after a food tray is prepared, the same is placed in a trolley. The trolley is placed under the custody of a Supervisor. The Supervisor has the authority to reject a tray placed in the trolley or to accept the same. In the present case relating to the incident, the Supervisor of the concerned trolley did not make any adverse remark in the log book. It is also noted that, croissants concerned was supplied by Monginis. There is no material on record to suggest that any proceedings against Monginis has been initiated for such supply of croissants containing alleged fungus. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has returned such finding.
As a writ court, I am not to sit over appeal over the impugned decision passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The scope of enquiry for a writ court is limited. The impugned order has not been demonstrated to be perverse. The impugned order is reasoned. The view taken by the Industrial Tribunal is plausible. The writ court is not to substitute its own findings with that of the Tribunal impugned before it unless it is demonstrated to be vitiated by perversity, or passed in breach of principles of natural justice.
In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited (supra) the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to intervene in a domestic enquiry has been laid down. It has held that, the Industrial tribunal has to accept the finding arrived at in the domestic enquiry unless it is perverse or unreasonable or the Tribunal has reasons to believe that the management is guilty of victimisation or has been guilty of unfair labour practice or is acting mala fide. In the present case, the Tribunal on appreciation of the materials placed before it has to come to a finding that the enquiry is perverse, unreasonable, not permissible and that the management guilty of victimisation and unfair labour practice.
In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. WP No. 1733 of 2003 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
In view of the domestic enquiry being set aside by the impugned order of the Industrial Tribunal, the management will reverse all decisions taken pursuant to and emanating out of such domestic enquiry against the employee forthwith. In doing so, the management will ensure that the employee is not prejudiced either in course of his employment or otherwise so far as monetary benefits as well as any other benefits receivable by such employee is concerned. The management will treat the employee as if the impugned disciplinary proceeding was not initiated against him.