The Managing Director, Gulbarga and Others vs Basavaraj

A.S. Bopanna, J.—Petitioners are before this Court assailing the award dated 15.06.2009 passed in KID No. 183/2004. The award is impugned at Annexure-A to the petition.

The respondent herein was appointed as Gangman by the petitioners and had been posted to work in the office of the first petitioner since the year 1998. The requisite qualification for the said post was a pass in 7th standard. The respondent claiming to have studied in the Independent Higher Primary School, Ambedkar Colony, Harur Geri, Bidar has submitted his credentials at the time of selection. Subsequent to the selection of the respondent and he being provided with the job, one Sri Vilas who is also stated to have made an application but having failed in the selection made a complaint to the petitioners that the documents submitted by the respondent are not genuine and the said person had claimed that the document which related to him had been relied upon by the respondent to seek employment. Petitioners had accordingly secured complaint filed in that regard which on investigation had resulted in filing of charge sheet in C.C. No. 30/2005. However, on trial, the respondent was acquitted by the judgment dated 19.09.2007. In view of registration of the criminal case, petitioners had also taken action to dismiss the respondent from service by the order dated 23.04.2004. The respondent herein raised a dispute by filing petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in KID No. 183/2004. The dispute was ultimately considered by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gulbarga. In that light, on having taken note of the acquittal in the criminal proceedings and there being no other proceedings held by the petitioners to establish the allegation against the respondent, the Labour Court was of the opinion that the dismissal order dated 23.04.2004 is not justified. The same was accordingly set aside and a direction has been issued to the petitioners to reinstate the respondent into service with continuity of service and 40% of the backwages. Petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by the said award are before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the award would contend that the Labour Court was not justified in its conclusion. It is her case that the documents as submitted by the respondent while seeking employment pertain to the complainant-Sri Vilas and therefore, the Labour Court ought to have kept this in view before coming to a conclusion and ought not to have relied only on the acquittal in the criminal proceedings. It is in that light contended that the documents being not genuine and pertaining to the respondent, the respondent could not have claimed benefit of employment.

The learned counsel for the respondent on other hand would seek to sustain the award passed by the Labour Court. It is pointed out that when the dismissal was based only on the criminal proceedings wherein there has been acquittal recorded in favour of the respondent that in itself was sufficient. The learned counsel would further add that though that be the position, the Labour Court has also referred to the documents which were available on record and had satisfied itself that the respondent has not relied upon any other document but the documents relied upon by the respondent pertained to himself and the Labour Court has arrived at its conclusion. Therefore, he contends that the award passed by the Labour Court does not call for interference.

In the light of the contentions, I have perused the petition papers including the award passed by the Labour Court.

The position that criminal case had been registered against the respondent and in that light he had been dismissed from service with effect from 23.04.2004 without any other domestic proceedings being held against the respondent cannot be in dispute. If that be the position, action of dismissal taken against the respondent is entirely based on the criminal proceedings. In the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 30/2005, after trial, by the judgment dated 19.09.2007, the respondent herein has been acquitted. If that be the position, the law is well settled that when the action is based on the criminal proceedings and if in the criminal proceedings the case is not established and the accused is acquitted, all subsequent action taken against the employee based on the same get nullified. Hence, observation of the Labour Court to the said extent is justified.

Even otherwise, what is necessary to be noticed is that even before the Labour Court, the respondent herein had relied upon the documents at Exs. W2 and W3, the documents pertained to the education of the respondent which had been relied upon therein. In contrast to the same, petitioners herein had relied upon the document at Ex. M2 based on which it was contended that the name of Sri Vilas was indicated in the said document and therefore it was contended that respondent had produced the document pertaining to the education of Sri Vilas and therefore action was justified. While taking note of the said documents, the Labour Court has also referred to the documents which was produced at Ex. M3 and it had kept in view the fact that the original documents as had been relied on by the respondent had been produced by him before the Labour Court.

Further, while taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, the Labour Court has also kept in view that at the time of employment original documents would be filed, it would be thereafter, verified and on retaining the copies, the original documents would be returned back to the candidate. It is in that light, the Labour Court has arrived at a conclusion that even in the documents relied upon by the petitioners, name and date of birth of the respondent was indicated wherein the photo is also contained, in that document it was found that the name of Sri Vilas had been inserted only in the Photostat copy. Therefore, when such name had appeared in the xerox copy but not in the original, the Labour Court was of the opinion that the allegation that the respondent had relied on the document pertaining to Sri Vilas cannot be accepted. Therefore, in a circumstance where the Labour Court has not only taken note of the acquittal in the criminal proceedings but has also satisfied itself that the allegation is not justified, I am of the opinion that such finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court does not call for interference in the limited jurisdiction available to this Court in a writ petition.

In that view, the petition being devoid of merit is disposed of.