TATA Chemicals Ltd. vs Anil Kumar Singh Chauhan

Paresh Upadhyay, J.—Heard Mr. K.M. Patel, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Patel learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mukul Sinha, learned Advocate for the respondent.

Challenge in this petition is made to the award passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) No. 26 of 1997, dated 11.3.2003. By the said award, the respondent is ordered to be reinstated in service with 50% back-wages. The respondent was dismissed after holding departmental inquiry, by the petitioner and the said dismissal order was set aside by the Labour Court, which is the subject-matter of this petition.

Learned advocate for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had issued a charge-sheet to the respondent for having committed serious misconduct, inter-alia of disobeying the lawful and reasonable instructions on his superior, and aggressively entering the office of his superior and abusing him in filthy and vulgar language and threatening and assaulting him. It is stated that the said charge-sheet dated 17.10.1995 was inquired into by the Inquiry Officer and after giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent, he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. On conclusion of the said inquiry, the petitioner had imposed punishment of dismissal from the service, vide order dated 10.7.1996.

Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the Officer, who was assaulted by the respondent had filed police complaint also, wherein after taking statements of irrelevant persons, the police-authorities had filed B-Summary under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is stated that the said F.I.R. or filing of B-Summary by the police is not the subject-matter of this petition.

Learned advocate for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that police had not recorded the statements of any of the person who were witnesses in the departmental inquiry and under these circumstances the Labour Court could not have held that the respondent was not guilty on the basis of B-Summary report of the police. Specific attention of the Court is drawn to paragraph-7 of the petition in this regard. It is contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that, filing of B-Summary by the police authorities would not change the complexion of the departmental inquiry against the respondent or the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer, which is not even challenged by the respondent. Attention of the Court is drawn to the specific finding recorded by the Labour Court that the respondent has given up challenge to the legality of the inquiry held against him.

It is further contended that it is the settled position of law that, standard of proof in departmental inquiry, as well as criminal trial are on different footing. It is further pointed out that police had taken statements of those persons, who had nothing to do with the matter and the person who was assaulted was examined in departmental inquiry and he stood by the imputation against the respondent. Learned advocate for the petitioner has taken the Court through the entire record to contend that the Tribunal has interfered with the action of the petitioner on an irrelevant consideration and thus, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal suffers from the vice of perversity and therefore, the same be quashed and set aside.

Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that there is no provision of giving second show-cause notice to the concerned workman and it is not pointed out what prejudice is caused to him by that. It is further contended by learned advocate for the petitioner that assault is a serious misconduct as per settled position of law.

Learned advocate for the petitioner has also relied on the following decisions of Hon''ble the Supreme Court of India, as well as this Court in support of his contentions:

(I) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar,

(II) J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P. Agrawal and Another,

(III) New Shorrock Mills Vs. Maheshbhai T. Rao,

(IV) Kishan Singh (D) through LRs. Vs. Gurpal Singh and Others,

(V) Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others,

(VI) The Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. M.G. Vittal Rao,

On the other hand learned advocate for the respondent vehemently contended that the case against the respondent was based on victimization and after police having filed B-Summary and the same position having been accepted by the complainant, the reliance placed by the Tribunal on said fact cannot be said to be irrelevant and therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal may not be interfered with. It is further contended that second show-cause notice was not given to the respondent.

Learned advocate for the respondent, in support of his contention, has also relied on the decisions in the case of Mavji C. Lakum Vs. Central Bank of India, and in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another,

Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the record, this Court finds that the charge levelled against the petitioner also included assault by the respondent on his superior and the same is serious misconduct. It further needs to be recorded that legality of the inquiry in question was already given by the workman as recorded by the Labour Court. On the face of these facts, the Tribunal was not justified in basing its conclusion on the factor that the police had filed B-Summary in the matter. Even if no F.I.R. was filed in this matter/then also that would have not change the complexion of the departmental inquiry and finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The Tribunal fell in error in basing its conclusion on the fact of filing of B-Summary by police for the F.I.R. which was also pertaining to the same incident. The Tribunal, in effect thereby nullified the effect of the departmental inquiry held against the respondent. The ultimate conclusion recorded by the Tribunal on this reasoning cannot be allowed to stand on the eyes of law and the same needs to be quashed and set aside. The consequential direction of reinstatement with back wages can also therefore not survive. Reliance placed by learned advocate for the respondent on the decisions as referred above, would not take the case of the respondent any further in this fact situation.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed. The award passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) No. 26 of 1997, dated 11.3.2003 is quashed and set aside. Since the petitioner was under legal obligation to pay last wages drawn by the respondent, during pendency of this petition, in compliance of provisions of section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, with the disposal of this petition, said direction would now not survive.

Rule is made absolute. No order as to cost.