Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

General Manger,Security Paper Mills vs Ganesh Baggan (Dead) Thr. Lrs Smt. Radha ... on 8 February, 2023

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                                    1
                                         IN     THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                                  BEFORE
                                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                         ON THE 8 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                                         WRIT PETITION No. 3707 of 2000

                                        BETWEEN:-
                                        GENERAL MANGER,SECURITY PAPER MILLS DISTT-
                                        HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                                        (BY SHRI ANAND NAYAK - ADVOCATE)

                                        AND
                                        1-    GANESH BAGGAN (DEAD) THR. LRS
                                        A(a). SMT. RADHA BAI W/O LATE SHRI GANESH
                                              B A G G A N R/O HARIJAN COLONY, GWALTOLI
                                              (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                        (b).   ADITYA S/O LATE SHRI GANESH BAGGAN, AGED
                                               ABOUT 14 YEARS, R/O HARIJAN COLONY,
                                               GWALTOLI, HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                        (c).   KUMARI SHIVANI D/O LATE SHRI GANESH
                                               BAGGAN, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, R/O HARIJAN
                                               COLONY, GWALTOLI, HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
                                               PRADESH)

                                        (d).   KUMARI SIMRAN D/O LATE SHRI GANESH
                                               BAGGAN, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, R/O HARIJAN
                                               COLONY, GWALTOLI, HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
                                               PRADESH)

                                        (1-B) GAMA BAGGAN B/O LATE SHRI GANESH BAGGAN
                                        (a)   S/O NOT MENTION R/O GADARI MOHALLA,
                                              SEONIMALWA,    DISTRICT    HOSHANGABAD
                                              (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                        (b).   SURENDRA KUMAR BAGGAN B/O LATE SHRI
Signature Not Verified
                                               GANESH BAGGAN S/O NOT MENTION R/O
  SAN
                                               GADARI MOHALLA, SEONIMALWA DISTRICT
                                               HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                               PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.02.15 17:44:55 IST

                                        2.     INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
                                                                     2
                                               NEAR MADAN MAHAL UNDER                     BRIDGE,
                                               JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH).


                                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                                        (NONE PRESENT)

                                              Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                                        following:
                                                                             ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved of the award and order dated 22.09.1999 and 16.09.1919, respectively, passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, by which learned Tribunal has allowed the claim of the workman Ganesh Baggan, Ex-

Safaiwala and has directed the authorities to reinstate the workman by setting aside the termination of the service and has further held that he be deemed to be in service of the Management from the date of award and paid wages and allowances. It is further held that he will be deemed to be continuous in service. Since the workman did not perform any work from the date of termination till the date of award, the workman will not be entitled to wages and allowances for this period.

2. Shri Anand Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award is perverse and arbitrary. Petitioner is discharging sovereign functions as a entity of Ministry of Finance. It employs about two thousand persons in different capacities and different grades.

3. It is submitted that Ganesh Baggan was a chronic absentee and several punishments were inflicted on him for several acts of delinquencies in the past.

He was removed from service w.e.f. 19.9.1990 on account of unauthorised Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI absence. It is submitted that the dispute as was raised before the Regional Date: 2023.02.15 17:44:55 IST 3 Labour Commissioner on failure of conciliation was referred to the Industrial Tribunal and Management had filed documents relating to six inquiries, but petitioner appearing for the Management could not appear in the Tribunal in connection with some Central Government cases as he was a standing counsel for Union of India. The message was sent through his colleague, but same has not reached the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the matter was proceeded in absence of original enquiry files holding that admission of the workman of his guilt was not proved and termination was declared illegal.

4. It is submitted that petitioner had filed an application in January 2000, for recalling the impugned order, but same was not allowed and, therefore, this writ petition.

5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Manoj H. Mishra Vs. Union of India and others [(2013) 6 SCC 313], wherein, it is held that where there is unequivocal admission of guilt made by the delinquent despite opportunity to deny the charges at final stage before Inquiry officer, nor earlier denial of charges made by the delinquent in preliminary hearing reiterated delinquent cannot be permitted to resile from admission made before the enquiry officer.

6. Placing reliance on this judgment, it is submitted that Tribunal failed to take into consideration the appropriate principles of law which are holding the field since the times of judgment of Supreme Court in Gujrat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Majdoor Sabha [(1980) 2 SCC 593]. Hence, petition be allowed.

7. Though nobody is appearing for the workman, but since this case is pending for about 23 years, record perused.

8. As far as law in case of Manoj H. Mishra (supra) is concerned, there Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2023.02.15 17:44:55 IST were allegations of breach of confidentiality agreement and Manoj H. Mishra 4 was charged of communicating information to media in breach of confidentiality agreement. In the present case, however, facts are different. It is a case of a Safaiwala being charged of unauthorised absence.

9. It is not the case of the petitioner that they had conducted an enquiry before removing the workman from service. There are no documents on record to show that there was any domestic enquiry. Thus, issue is in regard to proportionality of the punishment. It is settled principle of law, as held in Bhagat Ram Vs. State of H.P. (AIR 1983 SC 454), that punishment or penalty to be imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. A disproportionate penalty would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

10. In Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India [(1987) 4 SCC 611], doctrine of proportionality in administrative law is discussed. In case of District Judge, Bahraich Vs. Muniyar Prasad [(2002) 10 SCC 425], it is held that proportionality is, in effect, a facet of the principles of reasonableness. The principle of Wednesbury reasonableness is applicable. It is also held by the Wade and Forsyth in administrative law 7th Edition page 403, that "where attempts have been made to rely upon proportionality judges have tended to equate it with reasonableness."

11. Thus, when the quantum of punishment and the procedure adopted are weighed, then order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal as onus was on the petitioner employer to have proved the factum of guilt which admittedly they Signature Not Verified SAN failed to prove.

12. Accordingly, petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is, Date: 2023.02.15 17:44:55 IST 5 hereby, dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE A.Praj.