Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maruti Suzuki India Limited Palam vs Annamma Jose And Another on 21 January, 2014
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Harinder Singh Sidhu
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Letters Patent Appeal No. 2175 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.1.2014
Maruti Suzuki India Limited Palam, Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon
... Appellant
Versus
Annamma Jose and Another
... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu.
Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Indivar William Gosain, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Jasbir Singh, Judge (Oral) Respondent No.1-Annamma Jose is a widow of poor workman-C.V.Jose who is no more in this world. Even then he is haunted by his employer by filing this appeal.
As per facts on record, on 12.12.1997 when C.V.Jose was on duty, fire erupted in the factory at about 2.25 P.M. It was an allegation against him that he had intentionally ignited fire with an idea to cause loss to the appellant's premises. It is an admitted fact that when fire broke out, it was immediately extinguished on account of activation of carbon dioxide system, used for fire fighting, which was available in the premises. On the above mentioned charge, enquiry was conducted. As per Enquiry Report dated 4.9.1999, appellant-Management has failed to prove its charges against respondent No.2. The competent authority Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.01.28 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No. 2175 of 2012 (O&M) 2 differed with the enquiry report and came to a conclusion that the workman was at fault. After getting his response, order of dismissal of the workman was passed on 26.4.2000. The workman went in appeal which was dismissed on 30.9.2000. Thereafter, he raised a dispute which was referred to the Industrial-cum-Labour Court at Gurgaon. The Labour Court, after affording opportunity to both the parties and on recording evidence, passed an award on 23.7.2009. Dismissal of the workman was upheld. Thereafter, he approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 17254 of 2009 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 9.7.2012. Dismissal order of the workman and order passed by the Labour Court were set aside and he was ordered to be reinstated in service till the time of his death. It was further ordered that let consequential benefits be paid to him within a specified period. Hence, this appeal.
Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Management of Madurantakam Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S. Viswanathan 2005(2) SC.T. 111 and has vehemently contended that it was not open to the learned Single Judge to re-appraise the facts and give a finding contrary to the finding given by the Labour Court.
We have gone through the judgment placed before us. It is laid down therein that normally, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, is the final Court of facts in these types of disputes, but if a finding of fact is perverse and/or if the same is not based on legal evidence, the High Court when exercising its power Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.01.28 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No. 2175 of 2012 (O&M) 3 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can go into the question of fact decided by the Labour Court or the Tribunal. This exactly has been done by the learned Single Judge in this case. Before deciding to look into facts on record, the learned Single Judge noticed that during enquiry the workman was exonerated, however, the punishing authority differed with it without giving any sufficient reasons. Under the circumstances, the learned Single Judge decided to examine Enquiry Report with extra care and also the evidence on record. After looking into evidence on record, it was said that critical examination of the enquiry report does not support the reason assigned by the punishing authority in disagreeing with it.
It is an admitted fact that qua the fire incident in the factory, during enquiry, no eye witness was produced except one Raju. When the matter was looked into by the Labour Court, it has come on record that at the time of alleged incident, about 15 workmen were on duty. So far as Raju is concerned, it has been noticed that he was an interested witness. He was desirous of getting promoted to the post against which the workman was working. The learned Single Judge has looked into the statement made by Raju and came to a conclusion that against version given by him, there is a version of four defence witnesses who are co- workers and by analyzing their statements, it was said that Raju's statement cannot be relied upon. In that regard, it was said as under:-
"It deserves to be remembered that none of the other Management witnesses were eye-witnesses to the incident. The basic issue, to my mind, is to counterbalance the Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.01.28 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No. 2175 of 2012 (O&M) 4 evidence of Raju, on the one hand and four independent defence witnesses, on the other hand and who is to be believed.
The disagreement note is long and laboured. There is no material on record from where this Court can hold or discern that the witnesses produced by Jose were not telling the truth. As to how the disciplinary authority was convinced that the witnesses had spoken lies remains in darkness. It appears that Jose's mental condition was used against him. To put it bluntly, it appears to me to be a case where you give a dog a bad name and kill it. The statement of Raju inspires no confidence in this Court and deserves to be rejected. He was interested and had an axe to grind by speaking in favour of the management. The Enquiry Officer did well not to rely on the statement of Raju and the Labour Court, I am afraid, derelicted from its duty in not even examining the evidence cursorily or threadbare and shutting itself out merely on the procedural aspects of the enquiry. The enquiry to be fair and proper is not cosmetic. The procedure was followed or not followed is cosmetic. It is the duty of the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act to go under the skin of the case, without being trammeled by a disagreement note which in the present case is worth no more than waste paper."
The Management had relied upon one confessional statement allegedly made by the workman. That was also rightly disbelieved by the Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.01.28 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No. 2175 of 2012 (O&M) 5 learned Single Judge. In that regard, it was observed as under:-
"To turn to the testimony of AS Nirwan, appearing as Management witness, it may be noticed that the match stick used for igniting of fire was kept with him and that he stated that he would search out the same for production before the Enquiry Officer. The burnt match stick was the corpus of the charge. The tip and some upper portion was said to be burnt. It was Nirwan who had found the burnt match stick in the Jig Container in the presence of Shri KK Gaur which was drowned in the Thinner. The burnt match stick which was stated to have been retrieved from the Jig Box, after the fire broke out was not produced during the enquiry. I see no admission of guilt by Jose sufficient to discard the statement of defence witnesses. Much has been made of Ex.M5. It has been used as a confessional statement of Jose. It is at Annexure P-10. The repeated letters "I" "I" seen in the document are too far separated from the context and gives rise to serious doubt. The same needs to be reproduced as under:-
"The Manager P/S, I M.U.L. Gurgaon Sir, I Time About 2:30, on 12/12/97 Match Box -
I Ignited - Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.01.28 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No. 2175 of 2012 (O&M) 6 T/C Booth- thinner Box sd/- Jose .C. V, 132080 Witnesses sd/- Ashwani Sharma sd/- Illegible sd/-Illegible 22/6/98 sd/-Illegible"
This Court feels that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified. During arguments, we have also seen the said confessional statement which does not convey that as a matter of fact, the workman had accepted his guilt. There appears to be some cutting also so far as the word "I" is concerned. Under the circumstances, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified to say that the finding given by the Labour Court was contrary to the evidence on record. The Labour Court has failed to look into Enquiry Report in a proper manner. The statements of witnesses produced were not analyzed correctly.
Thus, no case is made out to cause interference by this Court in the present appeal.
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Harinder Singh Sidhu) Judge January 21, 2014 "DK"
Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.01.28 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document