Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—By this writ petition, petitioner-Corporation is challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 3.6.1998 (copy Annexure P/3) vide which order of dismissal of respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was set aside and he was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service but without backwages. The workman was dismissed on various charges. They are as under :-

"1. Causing monetary loss to the tune of Rs. 6980.32 on account of showing less mileage in the log book and non-payment of advance money of Rs. 462/-;

Shortage of palm oil amounting to Rs. 1533.60;

Shortage of 200 litres of oil amounting to Rs. 1639A;

Showing over consumption of 296 litres oil; and

For not plying the truck on 28.11.1983 and 1.12.1983.

All the charges were answered by the Enquiry Officer against the workman. It is observed by the La bour Court that the workman has confessed to the ex tent that he was illiterate and could not fill up the log book himself and his cleaner used to complete the same and regarding advance of Rs. 462/- he admitted that he was liable to deposit the amount but for his being placed under supervision and during 8/83 the truck was not repaired by the Transport Officer, Punsup. The workman has contended that the truck was push started and at the time of loading, engine has to be kept in running condition as it was difficult to drive the truck, Because of this, more diesel was consumed. He has also mentioned that his predecessor driver also mentioned in the log book that the truck is push started and five litre diesel is consumed and the tyres of the truck were not in good condition. The Labour Court has also observed that "documents Ex.WW2/1 to Ex. WW2/5 adduced in defence indicate some likelihood of palm oil and partly the department also ordered for the recovery of the shortage in transit loss and storage loss from the concerned official". How ever, it has been held that the Enquiry Officer based on the evidence of the defence witnesses and did not fully exonerate the delinquent workman from the charges regarding shortage of palm oil and also over consumption of diesesl. It is also observed by the Labour Court that assistance of a co- worker was not provided to the workman in the enquiry proceedings and this was be cause he has not asked for any such assistance. On this point counsel for the respondent-workman has cited the case of Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, , wherein it has been ob served by the Supreme Court as under:

"The principle deducible from the provision contained in sub-rule (5) of Rule 15 upon its true construction is that where the department is represented by a Presenting Officer, it would be the duty of the delinquent Officer (Official ?), more particularly where he is a class IV Government servant whose educational equipment is such as would lead to an inference that he may not be aware of technical rules prescribed for holding inquiry, that he is entitled to be defended by an other Government servant of his choice. If the Government servant declined to avil of the opportunity, the inquiry would proceed. But if the delinquent officer is not informed of his right and ah overall view of the inquiry shows that the delinquent Government servant was at a comparative disadvantage compared to the disciplinary authority represented by the Presenting Officer and as in the present case, a superior officer, co- delinquent, is also represented by an officer of his choice to defend him the absence of anyone to assist such a Government servant belonging to the lower echelons of service would unless it is shown that he had not suffered any prejudice, vitiate the Inquiry."

The respondent-work man was, in the present case, working as a driver. The Labour Court has held that no assistance of a co-worker was given to him because he had not asked for any such assistance. The Labour Court has considered this aspect. However, it has not exonerated the workman. It has considered that the delinquent official is a driver. It, therefore, set aside the order of dismissal and order reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages. The backwages in this case would have been from 8.5.1991. The award of the Labour Court is dated 3.6.1998. The Labour Court has, therefore, held that the denial of backwages would be sufficient punishment.

The next question is regarding delay. In this case, it is the case of the respondent-workman that he had filed appeals Ex. W1 dated 23.6.1986 and Ex. W2 dated 13.8.1990, postal receipts of the same were produced at Ex. W3 to Ex. W4. Counsel for the petitioner has not told us as to what decision was taken in these appeals and if taken, when it was taken and when it was conveyed to the respondent-workman and this being so. It will not be proper to hold that the demand was raised at a belated stage. Moreover, in addition to the above reasons, the principle laid down in the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Ltd. and another, 1999(3) SC 38 : 1999(2) SCT 667 (SC), is also applicable to the facts of the present case. We would have considered remanding of the matter to the Enquiry Officer but in view of the long period which has elapsed after the termination order, we do not find it proper to do so. In view of the above reasons we find that it will not be proper to disturb the finding recorded by the Labour Court.

The question of delay, explanation thereof and the punishment, all considered together lead us to observe that the award of the Labour Court should not be set aside.

As a result this writ petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.