The General Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others vs Gordhan Singh and Another

Govind Mathur, J.—By this petition for writ validity, correctness and propriety of the award dated 24.08.2007 passed by Labour Court, Jodhpur in Industrial Dispute No. 12/2006 is questioned.

In brief, facts of the case are that the appropriate government by notification dated 18.06.2005 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Jodhpur in the terms "whether the order imposing penalty dated 23.03.2001 passed by the employer Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and the order dated 10.07.2001 passed by the General Manager (Operation-III) rejecting the appeal preferred by the workman Gordhan Singh-I son of Shri Bheru Singh Driver, represented by Shri Vijay Mehta, Executive Member, Rajasthan State Roadways Employees Union, Jodhpur, are just and valid? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled?"

As per the averments made in the statement of claim respondent workman was charge sheeted by the Chief Manager, Jodhpur Depot on 15.01.2000 for an incident occurred on 30.12.1999. The inquiry officer after considering the material available on record submitted his report on 02.02.2001 not finding the workman guilty for any of the allegation. The Chief Manager (Disciplinary Authority) by an order dated 23.03.2001 while disagreeing with the findings given by the inquiry officer, imposed a penalty of a fine of Rs. 1000/- with forfeiture of wages other than the subsistence allowance already paid for the period of suspension. An appeal preferred by the workman assailing the order passed by the disciplinary authority also came to be rejected on 10.07.2001.

The industrial dispute raised by the workman giving challenge to the orders aforesaid then was referred for its adjudication to the learned Labour Court, where the workman contended that no reasons for disagreement with the findings given by the inquiry officer were communicated to him before imposing penalty, though an opportunity of hearing was certainly given to him. The Labour Court while relying upon judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Sh. Kunj Behari Misra, held that the order imposing penalty was bad as no tentative reasons were communicated to the workman before imposing the penalty. Accordingly, the order imposing the penalty and also the order passed by the appellate authority were set aside.

Shri P.K. Lohra, appearing on behalf of the petitioner employer while challenging award impugned dated 24.08.2007 urged that as a matter of fact an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before imposing penalty and, therefore. there was no need to supply tentative reasons for disagreement with the findings given by the inquiry officer. It is emphasised that the requirement of giving reasons for disagreement stood satisfied on giving opportunity of hearing to the workman.

On the other hand, it is urged on behalf of the respondent workman that the award impugned does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference of this Court while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is asserted that when the disciplinary authority was disagreeing with the findings given by the inquiry officer, then before imposing penalty the reasons for such disagreement should have been accorded, otherwise that violates the principles of natural justice and also cause prejudice to the workman''s right for defence.

I have considered the rival contentions.

Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, , held that the Enquiry Officer if held the employee guilty for misconduct and the disciplinary authority proposes punishment on basis of that, then the report of the Enquiry Officer is an adverse material, which is required to be supplied to the delinquent employee before confirming the punishment. In a quasi judicial enquiry, if the delinquent is being deprived of knowledge of material used against him in the matter of reaching a conclusion adverse to the delinquent, then that will certainly affect civil rights of the employee concerned. In the case in hand, though the petitioner was not found guilty by the Enquiry Officer, however the disciplinary authority was of a different view, as such, the adverse material at the first instance came into existence only on disagreement made by the disciplinary authority with the findings given by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was not at all aware with such adverse material as no reason for disagreement was ever communicated to him. The disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the enquiry officer on article of charge before recording his own finding did not choose to supply tentative reasons for such a disagreement at the time of supply of inquiry report or at any time before imposition of penalty of removal. It is well settled that wherever a delinquent employee succeeds before the inquiry officer to establish his innocence and the disciplinary authority defers with the findings given by the inquiry officer and imposes punishment, then the disciplinary authority is required to provide tentative reasons for such disagreement to the delinquent employee. If no such reasons are provided to the delinquent employee by the disciplinary authority then the same shall certainly cause a prejudice to him as he shall not be in a position to place his version to defend himself with regard to the view taken by disciplinary authority.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Sh. Kunj Behari Misra, and in the case of S.B.I. and Others Vs. Arvind K. Shukla, in quite unambiguous terms promulgated the law as referred above. As such, it was obligatory for the disciplinary authority to communicate reasons for disagreement to the respondent workman. So far as opportunity of hearing is concerned, that stands absolutely on a different pedestal as the workman while availing such opportunity, relied upon the report of the Enquiry Officer itself being in his favour and he was not aware of the adverse material used against him by the disciplinary authority, those are the points of disagreement with the findings given by the Enquiry Officer.

In view of whatever said above, I do not find any error with the award impugned. Before parting that, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent workman has already retired from services and at this stage, if any interference is made with the award impugned, then that will be too harsh for the workman.

For the reasons given above, the petition for writ is dismissed.