AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Kanagaraj, J.—The above Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari
to call for the records of the first respondent in I.D.No.12 of 1990, dated 28.7.1995 and quash the same.
On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that the second respondent
was an Electrician with the petitioner Management. The case of the petitioner/Management is that on 27.10.1988 at about 1.10 a.m., the second
respondent/workman came in a cycle and committed theft of two copper coils kept near the compound wall and when he was attempting to move
his cycle with the copper coils, he was apprehended by the Security Guard and when questioned by the security personnel, he admitted the guilt.
On such charge, the petitioner/Management has not only initiated departmental proceedings against the second respondent/workman but has also
lodged a criminal complaint against him. Thereupon, the petitioner Management has issued a charge memo. dated 28.10.1988 thereby alleging
misconduct of theft, fraud and committing acts punishable under the law of the land and after investigation in the criminal case, a charge sheet was
also filed before the Court of I Class Magistrate, Pondicherry in C.C.No.1989.
It further comes to be known that thereafter, the Management conducted a departmental enquiry and having held that the charges were proved
against him, the second respondent was dismissed from service by the petitioner Management by their order dated 24.5.1989. In the Industrial
Dispute raised by the second respondent/workman challenging his dismissal by the Management, the Labour Court has ordered reinstatement of
the second respondent in the petitioner Mill. It is only aggrieved against such a finding of the Labour Court, the petitioner Management has come
forward to file the above writ petition.
A careful perusal of the Award passed by the Labour Court would show that the Labour Court has proceeded on the basis that the second
respondent was acquitted in the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.66 of 1989 and held that in such circumstances, the petitioner has no power to
dismiss the second respondent for the same alleged misconduct since it amounts to ''double jeopardy'' for the single act alleged to have been
committed on the part of the second respondent.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would Pooh-pooh the said finding of the Labour Court on ground that it is a well established principle of
law that for the same misconduct, the employee can be taken to task both under the criminal law and also under the departmental proceedings and
it can never be treated as a double jeopardy since they both are two different and distinct proceedings and the standard of proof in departmental
enquiry is not the same as in criminal trial and would cite two judgments of the Honourable Apex Court, the first one delivered in Senior
Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta and Others Vs. A. Gopalan, and the other one in Govind Das v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1997)
11 SCC 361 . In both the above judgments, the Honourable Apex Court, in no uncertain terms, has held:
The acquittal of the appellant in the criminal proceedings is based on the view that the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Since
the standard of proof required to prove a charge of misconduct in departmental proceedings is not the same as that required to prove a criminal
charge, the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case could not be made the basis for setting aside the order for termination of the services of
the appellant passed in the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of evidence adduced in the departmental inquiry conducted in the charges levelled
against the appellant.
Regarding the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the offence is one of theft, the Management is
justified in awarding the punishment of dismissal from service and would cite two judgments of this Court, the first one delivered in T. SEERALAN
Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, II ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS Reported In 1985(II) LLJ 85 And The Other One
Delivered In S.ANTHONISAMY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, PONDICHERRY AND ANOTHER Reported In 2003
(4) LLN 922. In both these cases, the learned Judges of this Court have upheld the decision of the Management in dismissing the workmen therein
for theft, which were considered as serious misconduct. On such arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would pray to set aside the
Award of the Labour Court.
On the other hand, on the part of the second respondent/workman, the learned counsel while backing the Award passed by the Labour Court
as one passed after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the law covering the subject and would cite a judgment of
this Court delivered in S.RANGASAMY Vs. VELLANDIVALASAI INDUSTRIAL WEAVERS COOPERATIVE PRODUCTION AND
SALES SOCIETY LTD., SALEM DISTRICT AND OTHERS Reported In 1992 1LLN 1028 wherein a learned single Judge of this Court,
way-back in the year 1991, while considering the point ''whether in the face of acquittal in criminal case, the petitioner-employee was entitled to
reinstatement'', has held that ''while Courts admit that acquittal in criminal charge may not be a bar to departmental proceeding, it will be of
significance and importance in departmental proceeding and go a long way to show the innocence of employee'' and in the facts of the case, has
remitted the matter to the Labour Court with a direction to give weight to the findings of the Sessions Court in the criminal appeal.
Citing the above judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court and further submitting that the Labour Court has appreciated the entire facts
and circumstances of the case in the manner required under law and has correctly arrived at the decision to order reinstatement of the second
respondent, the learned counsel for the second respondent would pray to dismiss the above writ petition.
As pointed out on the part of the petitioner, the Labour Court has proceeded on the basis of the acquittal judgment rendered in the criminal
proceedings further holding that it is nothing but a double jeopardy. The law is well settled to the effect that both the departmental proceedings and
the criminal proceedings are two independent parallel proceedings which could be initiated against an erring employee and neither of the decisions
would be binding on the other. When such is the well settled position of law now, the Labour Court has gone upto the extent of remarking that the
proceeding against the employee under both the laws as of double jeopardy, which is nothing but a surmise or an illusion. In view of the latest
judicial thinking, as held by the Honourable Apex Court in the judgments cited supra and in very many other judgments, the view held by the
learned single Judge of this Court in the judgment cited on the part of the second respondent is held no longer a good law and would not become
applicable in the case in hand.
For the foregoing reasons assigned, the above Writ Petition though succeeds, paving way for setting aside the order of the Labour court
below, still, in the considered opinion of this Court since the Labour Court has been under miserable misconception of the legal position regarding
the bearing of a decision of a criminal court on the domestic proceeding and being influenced by such thought occupied in its mind, the Labour
Judge without giving vent to the standard of proof and the requirement for a valid conclusion to be arrived at in the matter concerned with a
departmental proceeding, has arrived at a wrong conclusion based on such perception regarding the legality which is erroneous and therefore with
these clarifications, it is only proper for setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court, to order a fresh enquiry to be held with sufficient
opportunity for both parties to be heard and to deliver a judgment on merits and in accordance with law in a time bound manner and hence the
following order:
In result,
(i) the above Writ Petition stands allowed in part;
(ii)the Award dated 28.7.1995 made in I.D.No.12 of 1990 by the Labour Court, Pondicherry is quashed;
(iii) the subject matter is remitted back to the Labour Court, Pondicherry to conduct a fresh enquiry with sufficient opportunity for both parties to
be heard and to deliver a judgment on merits and in accordance with law in the manner aforementioned within six months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order;
(iv) till such time, the status that is prevalent as on date shall not be disturbed.
However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.