Patna High Court
Employers In Relation To The Management ... vs Presiding Officer, Central Government ... on 29 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(3)BLJR1960
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award dated 18-12-91 passed by respondent No. 1, Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No. 1 Dhanbad in reference case No. 64/89.
2. It appears that by order dated 24th May, 1989, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal:
Whether the action of the management of Govindpur Area No. Ill of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Post Sonardih, Dist. Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Rajandan Singh is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
3. The case of the management is that on 11-5-83 at about 11 a.m. a mob of about 200 persons, armed with deadly weapons, committed several acts of violence on the person of Sri H.N. Tripathy, General Manager of Barora Area. The said mob abused Sri Tripathy and threatened him. with dire consequences within the precincts and premises of his office at Barora. The said mob committed various acts of mischief and caused damage to valuable properties belonging to H.N. Tripathy and the management. Ramanand Singh, a workman of the management of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. posted at the relevant time at Kharkharee colliery of Govindpur Area, was a member of the above violent mob ; he led the violent mob, committed various acts of violence and mischief, instigated and incited the mob to commit various acts of violence, mischief and subversive of discipline.
4. It transpires from the record that the workman concerned was charge-sheeted and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. After conclusion of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the workman concerned have been proved as a result of which the workman concerned was dismissed from service.
5. As noticed above an industrial dispute was raised and ultimately the matter was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal, on the basis of the materials on record which includes the entire records of the departmental proceedings, came to a finding that the charges against the workman concerned have not been proved. Accordingly, the order of dismissal of the workman concerned was set aside and the management was directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages, continuity of service and other benefits with effect from the date of his dismissal from his service. Hence, this writ application.
6. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the management-petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal, contrary to facts and evidences on record. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has not only committed error of law but also error of facts and there is total perversity in the findings arrived at by the Tribunal. Mr. Mehta has drawn my attention to the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and submitted that although there is clear-cut evidence about the involvement of the workman concerned in assaulting Mr. Tripathy but the Tribunal has disbelieved the evidences and simply brushed aside the evidences merely by saying that the other witnesses contradicted themselves. Learned Counsel further submitted that there was ex pane inquiry inasmuch as the workman concerned did not participate in the departmental proceeding nor cross-examined the witnesses but the Tribunal has illegally come to the conclusion that, there was no sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of the workman concerned,
7. On the other hand Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the workman concerned submitted that from the evidence of the witnesses and from the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer it will appear that the whole finding is that the workman was leading the mob and there is no specific finding that this workman has in fact assaulted Mr. Tripathy. Learned Counsel further submitted that the other witnesses have also not categorically proved the charges levelled against the workman concerned. Besides the above, learned Counsel submitted that in any view of the matter, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should not interfere with the finding of facts when apparently the management failed to prove perversity in the said finding. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Rathor v. Sri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Limited and in the case of Management of West Bokaro Colliery of Tata Iron & Steel Company v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No, 1 and Anr. 1997 (2) PLJR 275.
8. The departmental proceeding proceeded on the basis that it was the workman concerned who assaulted Mr. Tripathy and other security personnel. On this charge evidence was led by the management. The Inquiry Officer came to the finding that the charges against the concerned workman were proved. The Tribunal, however, re-appraised the entire evidence which was available on record of the departmental proceeding and came to a definite finding that Mr. Tripathy was not assaulted by the workman concerned.
9. As noted above, Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade me to accept the submission that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse in law i. e. contrary to evidence adduced by the management. Surprisingly, in order to satisfy me the deposition of the witnesses have not been produced nor the copies of the same have been annexed with the writ petition. In absence of the original deposition of the witnesses it is not possible to hold that the finding is perverse in law. However, I will try to first deal with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. From the Inquiry report, it appears that the first witness examined by the management was Mr. H.N. Tripathy himself who was alleged to have been assaulted. The relevant portion of the evidence of Mr. Tripathy which was reproduced by the Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report is quoted herein below:
Besides giving the background of the happenings which occurred on 11-5-1983, he has categorically stated in his evidence that a large crowd was assembled near weight bridge by the side of his office when he persuaded his driver, who stopped the car near the mob, to Drive away and when he reached the office gate some people tried to stop his car. He further entered the office gate. While entering the car was hit by lathis from outside. When car reached near the portico of the office he saw Sri Ram Pravesh Singh, Area Secretary, BCKU and Sri B.C. Mondal of the same Union standing together to the left of portico. He has stated that he saw Sri Rajnandan Singh alias Ramanand Singh, Vice President of BCKU and employee of Gobindpur Area coming down the steps and there was a large furious mob of .about 150 to 200 persons. His car was hit from outside by lathis, bhallas, the dent can still be seen on the body. As soon as he got out the car and started moving upwards and he was 8 steps below the verandha in front of his office chamber, about fifteen to twenty persons stopped him. He recognized S/Sri Baiju Mahto, Baban Yadav, Mundrika Bhuia and R.C. Chatterjee amongst the crowd. Sri Baban Yadav hit him with lathi on his forehead and another lathi blows discharged by Sri Mundrika Bhuia and Sri Baiju Mahato struck the CISF Jawans who had come to rescue him along with S/Sri K.K. Khadia, Bhim Barhi. Sri R.C. Chatterjee got hold of his shirt and pulled it as a result of which the shirt was torn.
10. From a perusal of the aforesaid portion of the inquiry report, it is evident that there is no specific allegation that the workman concerned was amongst those persons who hit Mr. Tripathy with lathi on his forehead or the workman concerned along with others struck the CISF Jawans who had come to rescue him. It is, therefore, clear that Mr. Tripathy who was the most competent witness to say about the assault, has not blamed this workman along with others who hit him by lathi and bhallas. The tribunal on the basis of the evidence has come to a specific findings that it was not the workman concerned who actually hit Mr. Tripathy and other CISF Jawans and therefore the charges levelled against the workman have not been proved. As noticed above the deposition of the witnesses are not before me and, therefore, I am unable to hold that the finding of the Tribunal is perverse in law and also in fact. Moreover, when the Labour Court or the Tribunal come to a particular finding on appraisal of evidence, the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, is not supposed to disturb the said finding even if it is erroneous in law. In this connection, reference may be made to Jitendra Singh's case and the case of Management of West Bokaro Colliery (supra).
11. The Tribunal has further taken note of the facts and circumstances under which the agitated mob collected to the premises of Barora Area Office. It was the case of the sponsoring union that as a result of criminal negligence of the part of the management in constructing the water reservoir three persons died. In this, F.I.R. Sri Tripathy has stated that there was an unfortunate incident in the morning of 11-5-83 at about 7 O'clock at Barora Colliery where the water reservoir tank on the ground near the Barora Colliery quarters brushed causing injury to 4-5 persons who were removed to hospital for treatment. Mr. Tripathy deposed before the Inquiry Officer about the said incident of 11-5-83. The Tribunal, therefore, came to a finding that it was because of the said incident, a group of a person started agitating and that may be the reason they assembled in the Barora Area Office and the incident took place.
12. Having regard to the whole facts and circumstances of the case and discussions made above, I am of the opinion that there is no any reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Tribunal. I find no merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed.