Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anant Pandeey vs Presiding Officer on 8 November, 2000
Author: Mehtab S. Gill
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill
JUDGMENT S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. By this writ petition, the workman is challenging the order and award of the Labour Court Annexures P/3 and P/4 respectively. By annexure P/3, it has been ordered that the enquiry held against the workmen was proper and by Annexure P/4, the claim for re-instatement has been dismissed and only Rs. 30,000/- has been awarded.
2. The first point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that while taking decision, the Labour Court has not re-appreciated the evidence which it should have. The counsel has relied on the case of The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. The Management and others, reported in AIR 1973 SC 1227. He has relied on the observations made in para No. 32 of the judgment. It has been held by the Supreme Court that before the insertion of Section 11A in the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment to be imposed were all considered to be a managerial function which the Tribunal had no power to interfere unless the finding was perverse or the punishment was so harsh as to lead to an inference of victimisation or unfair labour practice. It has been further observed that this position has now been changed by Section 11A of the Act and the Tribunal is also now clothed with the power to reappraise the evidence in the domestic enquiry and satisfy itself whether the said evidence relied on by an employer established the misconduct of the employee. He has also relied on the case of Mangat Rai v. Punjab Road Transport Corporation and ait-other, reported in 1998(1) SCT 771 (P&H) (DB) : 1995(I) PLR 791. He has relied on para Nos. 27 and 28 of the judgment. It has been held in para No. 27 that the Courts have consistently held that in appropriate cases the Labour Court and the Tribunal can substitute the punishment awarded by the employer with a lesser punishment. It is also observed that the Labour Court or Tribunal can examine the issue relating to fairness of the departmental/domestic enquiry, the merits of the findings recorded during the course of such enquiry as well as the issue relating to punishment. It is observed in para No. 28 of the judgment that if the impugned award was examined in the light of the principles discussed above, there was no hesitation to hold that the learned Judge of the Labour Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 11A of the Act, he had neither discussed the evidence produced during the course of enquiry with a view to determine whether the charge levelled against the workman is proved or not, nor he had considred whether the punishment awarded to him is just or not.
3. In the present case, the petitioner was found to be guilty of grave charge. He was charge-sheet for serious mis-conduct. He had started taking part in union activities after the above charge-sheet on 4.3.1985.
He disturbed the enquiry proceedings as he shouted on management representative and also blamed enquiry officer about which he was again charge-sheeted on 6.3.1985 and another domestic enquiry was conducted and in both the enquiries, the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner was guilty. The petitioner had initially participated in the enquiry and thereafter he stopped coming despite many opportunities. On asking the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to which evidence was not considered by the Labour Court while deciding the case by the Labour Court, he is not able to show the same. He has also not shown as to what was the argument before the Labour Court to show that the particular evidence in the enquiry was not reliable and therefore, it should not have been relied upon. In view of this position, both the above rulings will not help the petitioner.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the management had also given its mind and therefore, the enquiry against him stood vitiated. The petitioner has reproduced in his writ petition extract from the letter dated 20.10.1985, which is as under :-
"A family cannot live in harmony nor can it expect real progress, unless there is trust in the Head of the family to take the right decisions. Similarly, a family is destined to fall apart if many of its members support violence and actions against its own interests. An example of this was that a person who according to my information had indulged in a very serious act of indiscipline, namely incitement to the violence, was elected as President of the Union this year. To me, this indicates that a majority of workers do not take the management or the concept of family seriously at all. It now seems to me that the talk of family becomes vocal only when an advantage is to be gained, but people such as those who have elected an irresponsible Union President are unmindful of the responsibility that a family imposes on each of its members. For this reason, it seemed to me that giving a speech as if all were well would be completely wrong, and that it was not the occasion to say what I am saying in this letter."
After reading the above mentioned letter, we do not find that the Management had given its mind or that it should be held that the Management was pre- decided to remove the petitioner from service.
5. No other ground has been urged before us.
6. In view of the above findings, this writ petition is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed.
Before parting with this judgment, we find that the Labour Court had no reason to decide the case piecemeal by passing order Annexure P/3 and finally award AnnexureP/4. Annexure P/3 is the findings of the Labour Court on the enquiry being conducted in just and proper manner and the award Annexure P/4 is for the decision of other issues. We express our displeasure on the piece-meal decision of the case by the Labour Court.