AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner Management has challenged the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Madurai, ordering
reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service, but without back wages.
The Respondent workman, was working with the Petitioner Management as ''driver'' for the past 10 years and receiving a salary of Rs. 460/-
(Rupees Four hundred and Sixty only) per month.
The bus number TMU 4636, driven by the workman, met with an accident on 7.07.1980 injuring one cyclist and 49 passengers, traveling in the
bus.
The workman was placed under suspension on 27.08.1980 and issued a charge memo, on 10th September 1980. In order to prove the
charges, the Management examined one witness i.e. Assistant Manager, whereas the workman, on the other hand, examined two passengers i.e.,
eye witnesses to the incident, to support the workman version of being not guilty of the accident.
The enquiry officer, on the basis of evidence, led in support of the charges, held the Petitioner guilty of charges. The Management after giving
opportunity to the workman to file objection to the enquiry report, was ordered to be dismissed from service on 23.03.1981.
It was after lapse of 15 years i.e. 8th July 1996, the workman challenged the order of dismissal, by raising an industrial dispute.
The learned Labour Court, Madurai, recorded a positive finding, that in case, the charges levelled against the workman are proved, then he
deserved the maximum punishment of dismissal.
The finding of the enquiry officer as also the order of dismissal, were challenged by the workman, by submitting that, he was not given adequate
opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry, as no eye witness was examined, so as to enable the workman to cross examine the witness.
The submission was also made, that the finding of the enquiry officer, stood vitiated for non-examining of the eye witnesses, especially when the
workman had examined two eye witnesses to the incident.
In-spite of recording this submission, the learned Labour Court, failed to record any finding, as to whether departmental enquiry stood vitiated,
for want of admissible evidence, as in the departmental enquiry evidence of Assistant Manager could be accepted, as strict rule of evidence do not
apply to departmental proceedings.
The learned Labour Court, without recording any finding on the validity of enquiry and as to whether the charges were proved against
Petitioner, proceeded to consider the issue u/s 11 of the Industrial Dispute Act, to consider whether the punishment of dismissal was excessive.
The learned Labour Court, then proceeded to hold that the dismissal of the workman was harsh, in view of certain facts brought out in the
departmental enquiry.
The award of the learned Labour Court, is perverse on the face of record. The charges against the workman were very serious in nature. In
absence of the finding that the enquiry report, was perverse and thus exonerating the Petitioner of the charges, holding him not guilty of the charges,
it was not open to the learned Labour Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment, that too when the reference was belated, having been
raised, after 15 years of the order of dismissal.
The writ petition is allowed, impugned award is set aside, and case is remitted back to the learned Labour Court, Madurai, to reconsider the
matter in the light of the contention raised by the parties regarding the validity of the enquiry report and thereafter to record a positive finding, as to
whether charges were proved or not.
It is only after a positive finding is recorded, regarding the enquiry proceedings and finding of the enquiry officer against the workman, that the
provision of Section 11 of the Industrial Dispute Act, can come into play to consider the quantum of punishment. The learned Labour Court,
Madurai, is directed also to take note of the fact that the reference was sought, after 15 years of order of dismissal.
The learned Labour Court, Madurai, is further directed to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, expeditiously, but not later than,
six months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The workman is ex-parte before this Court, therefore, the learned Labour Court, Madurai, is directed to issue notice to the workman, of the
hearing.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.