AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.
Civil Misc. No. 9294-CWP of 2014
Application u/s 151 CPC for placing on record Enquiry Report dated 11.12.2004 (Annexure P7) is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Civil Writ Petition No. 12722 of 2014
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 2.5.2011 (Annexure P5) whereby the preliminary issue holding that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was fair and proper, was decided against the petitioner-workman and the impugned award dated 31.1.2013 (Annexure P6) wherein the relief of reinstatement was declined. The workman, in his demand notice dated 22.9.2005 (Annexure P1) u/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short "the Act") took the plea that he was appointed as a Driver on 10.7.2000 with the institution and drawing monthly salary of Rs. 3,857/- and a charge-sheet dated 20.10.2003 had been served upon him levelling false and baseless allegations. He had submitted his reply on 29.10.2003 and thereafter an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who was an Advocate by profession and on the payroll of the Management. The report came against the petitioner-workman and a Show Cause Notice dated 21.1.2005 was issued to which he replied on 29.1.2005 and he was dismissed vide order dated 21.2.2005. The matter was referred to the Labour Court and the same plea was taken, which was contested by the Management by submitting that a full-fledged domestic enquiry had been held and the claim that the Enquiry Officer being an Advocate by profession and on the payroll of the Management was denied. The replication was filed reiterating the plea taken in the claim and it is submitted that he had a clean record during a long period of service of five years and therefore, he was entitled for reinstatement.
The Labour Court, while deciding the preliminary issue whether the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner, held that the workman had admitted the Show Cause Notice Ex. M1 and Enquiry Report Ex. M2, which has now been placed on record as Annexure P7. He had also filed reply and admitted his signatures in the enquiry papers. The issue was accordingly decided that though the Enquiry Officer had not been examined, the workman had not deposed that proper procedure had not been followed or he had not been supplied copy of the enquiry report. It was noticed that various charges including abandoning the bus apart from causing injuries to the nursery class student, who ultimately died at the spot stood proved. The enquiry report was examined in detail by the Labour Court and accordingly the issue was decided against the workman by holding that there was nothing on the record to show that it was fair and proper and principles of natural justice had been violated. Thereafter, as it was noticed, the termination was held to be justified and the acquittal in the criminal case was held to be of no help to the workman, by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another Vs. S. Samuthiram,
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the Enquiry Officer was not produced and therefore the finding was not justified and he being an Advocate by profession had twisted the proceedings in favour of the Management being on its payroll.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope of interference in the well justified order of the Labour Court. Perusal of the enquiry report would go on to show that as many as eight charges were levelled against the workman for various acts of misconduct like abandoning the bus, misbehaving with the principal, causing death of one of the students of a nursery class, giving lift to an unknown person by making him to sit in the bus, causing accident with the another school bus. The Management had produced as many as five witnesses before the Enquiry Officer including the conductor, who was on duty on the bus when the accident took place and on that basis the Labour Court has held that the enquiry was fair and proper and the employee had been associated in the departmental enquiry.
In such circumstances, no fault can be found in the well reasoned order of the Labour Court. Mere acquittal of the petitioner on the criminal side would not be a ground to give benefit to him since it is settled proposition of law that in the criminal proceedings the standard of proof has to be of a higher level for the prosecution to prove the charge and the benefit of doubt flows to the accused. In departmental proceedings, if the charge if found probable it would be a valid reason for terminating the services of the workman after holding a proper and fair enquiry and the same would not fall in the definition of retrenchment u/s 2(oo)(bb).
Thus, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same stands dismissed.