AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- employer challenging the award dated 4th October, 2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. The Tribunal, by the said award, has set aside the penalty order dated 30th April, 1999, imposing penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect on the respondent-workman.
The charge against the delinquent was in respect of remaining absent on 27th June, 1995. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and found that no charge was proved against the delinquent. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and found that misconduct, relating to absence of duty, was committed by the delinquent and as such, disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the penalty order was passed. The said penalty order was put to challenge by way of reference before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur. The Tribunal considering the settled law on the issue that the Disciplinary Authority is required to give, at least, Show Cause Notice and the reasons of disagreement to the delinquent where, it does not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer held that the penalty order without supplying reasons of disagreement, is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation Mr.VP Mathur submitted that the award dated 4th October, 2019 is required to be interfered by this Court, as the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel submitted that the alleged penalty order was dated 30th April, 1999 and reference was made after inordinate delay of 10 years and as such, no relief should have been granted, considering the delay in making a reference to the Industrial Tribunal.
Learned counsel submitted that the consistent view of the Apex Court is with regard to non-grant of any relief, if inordinate delay is caused in taking up the issue by way of reference before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court.
Learned counsel also submitted that the charge against the delinquent for remaining absent was duly proved and the delinquent was required to report to the Officer concerned about his absence and even if there were two persons assigned duties on a particular date, on a particular bus having fixed route, the incumbent was required to intimate the Officer with regard to his unavailability for joining the duty.
Learned counsel submitted that on the technical ground of not furnishing the reasons of disagreement by the Disciplinary Authority, the penalty order is not vitiated in the present facts of the case. Learned counsel also submitted that due to non- reporting on duty by the delinquent, the Corporation suffered loss and as such, the lenient view is not required to be taken against such employee, who does not report on duty, resulting inconvenience to the passengers and loss to the Corporation.
I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur.
This Court finds that the settled law with regard to non- furnishing reasons of disagreement has rightly been found to be fatal and the penalty order passed by the Disciplinary Authority without supplying copy of reasons of disagreement, vitiates the penalty order.
This Court finds that exoneration by the Enquiry Officer results into a situation, where the Disciplinary Authority can take a different view on the basis of the material available before it, however, before passing the penalty order, reasons of disagreement with the Enquiry Officer is required to be given to the delinquent employee, enabling him to submit his response/reply and to defend himself before the Disciplinary Authority.
This is settled law that the Disciplinary Authority can always differ or take a different view with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, however, the only safeguard to the delinquent employee is to know the reasons and get the order of disagreement, so he can defend himself in the departmental enquiry.
This Court finds that the Industrial Tribunal, after considering the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court, has rightly came to the conclusion that the Disciplinary Authority, in the present case, did not supply the reasons of disagreement with the Enquiry Officer and as such, the penalty order has rightly been set aside.
As far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that delay in making reference results into non-grant of relief is concerned, this Court finds that the reference, which was made by the State Government, was with respect to the penalty order dated 30th April, 1999 and since there is no statutory limitation prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act and the same is social and beneficial legislation, the relief cannot be declined only on the ground of a reference being made by the State Government after some delay.
This Court finds that the delay itself in making reference cannot be a ground to deny the relief and the delay itself can be one of the factor to mould the relief, which is given to the workman.
In the present facts of the case, since charge relating to the absence on a particular date i.e. 27th June, 1995 was not found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Disciplinary Authority on its own surmises, concluded that the charge relating to absence of the petitioner was proved, this Court finds that the view taken by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur is based on sound reasoning and as such, the relief could not have been denied to the respondent- workman.
This Court does not find any error in the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur and accordingly the present writ petition is dismissed.