AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard the parties, and with their consent this writ application is disposed of at this stage itself.
The petitioner i.e. the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant, has challenged the award dated 06.08.2001 pronounced on 28.01.2002 as contained in Annexure-8 to this writ petition, by which the labour court, Bokaro Steel City, in answer to a reference made to it held that the termination of the workman namely Uday Shankar Pathak, Trainee No. 812471 by the management was not justified.
The labour court directed the management to reinstate the concerned workman in service from the date of his termination along with 50 % of the back-wages with other consequential benefits.
The facts, in short, are that the workman namely U.S. Pathak was appointed as Junior Operative Trainee in the year 1972 in Bokaro Steel Plant, and he was required to undergo training for 11/2 years, and on successful completion thereof he was to be absorbed on regular basis, but before even completion of one year of training, a charge sheet was served on him on 10.11.1973 whereby he was asked to submit his reply against the allegation of commission of misconduct, to which he submitted his reply. His reply was found to be unsatisfactory. The management constituted an Enquiry committee, which conducted enquiry and thereafter submitted its report holding the workman to be guilty of the charges levelled against him. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the concerned workman was terminated from the Traineeship by an Office order dated 11/14.01.1975.
It appears that thereafter the concerned workman filed a Miscellaneous Case vide Misc. Case No. 14 of 1985 u/s 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act, against his termination, but the said Miscellaneous case was dismissed as not maintainable. Against this, the workman moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3268 of 1995R challenging dismissal of the Misc. Case. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to raise an industrial dispute. Thereafter, the workman raised Industrial dispute against his termination from Traineeship, which was referred by the appropriate government for adjudication to the Labour court.
According to the concerned workman, the Domestic Enquiry Committee was held in violation of the principles of natural justice, and the domestic enquiry was conducted in an arbitrary manner. Further, according to the workman, he was terminated from the Traineeship by the Personnel Manager (Training) who was not competent and authorised to terminate him from the Traineeship.
Before the labour court no evidence was led either by the Management or by the Workman rather both of them agreed that the evidence led in Misc. Case u/s 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act be taken for consideration in the proceeding also, and accordingly, the labour court relied on the evidence already led by the parties during the proceeding u/s 33A of the I.D. Act.
The charges against the concerned workman was that he committed the following acts of misconduct:
i) Riotous, disorderly and Indecent behaviour, and
ii) Assaulting employee of the Company
iii) Molestation of a woman employee and
iv) Commission of act subversive of good behaviour and discipline of the company.
On behalf of the management, two witnesses i.e. M.W.1, Prafulla Mishra and M.W.2 i.e. his wife Lata Devi were examined. Both were Sweepers working in Bokaro Steel Ltd. It was alleged that the concerned workman committed indecent behaviour and he molested Lata Devi. A First Information Report was also registered for the said offence, but it was registered against unknown.
The labour court at paragraph-9 of its award has discussed the evidence and materials on record and also considered the oral testimony of M.W.1, Prafulla Mishra and M.W.2, Lata Devi, his wife. However, the labour court rejected their oral evidence on the ground that both the witnesses examined by the management in order to prove the charges levelled against the concerned workman and their evidence was shaky and not specific. On the basis of which he could be held guilty for the charges of misconduct can be brought against him. The labour court has further stated in the same very paragraph that M.W.2 Lata Devi who is said to have been molested by the concerned workman has not even named him or claimed to have identified him from earlier. The labour court also took note of the fact that M.W.1 the husband of Lata Devi also admitted in his evidence that he did not identify the boy who molested his wife earlier.
The reasons assigned by the labour court for rejecting the oral evidence of M.W.1 and M.W.2 are absolutely untenable. Only because these two witnesses did not know the concerned workman from before by name or face that does not mean that on that ground their evidence was liable to be rejected.
Without commencing any further, which may cause prejudice to the parties in the court below, suffice is to say that the labour court has examined the evidence on record with completely wrong angle, and therefore, the matter requires a fresh reconsideration. Accordingly, after setting aside the award passed by the labour court, the matter is remitted back to him to decide the matter afresh after re-appraisal of the evidence and on materials already on record and after giving a chance of hearing to both the parties. It is made clear that any observation made in this order, shall not be taken as any conclusion and the labour court would be at liberty to apply his own independent judicial mind on the evidence and shall pass a fresh award within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.