Punjab-Haryana High Court
Managing Director vs The Presiding Officer on 24 October, 2013
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
CWP No.11570 of 1993 1
474
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.11570 of 1993
Date of Decision: 24.10.2013
Managing Director, Punjab Poultry Development Corporation Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and another
...Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present:- None.
*****
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J (ORAL)
The present writ petition, at the instance of the Management, is directed against the award dated 29.04.1993 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh, whereby respondent-workman was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% backwages.
Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Labour Court in the impugned award, are that the respondent-workman was employed as driver with the petitioner-Management. He was deputed on 14.07.1982 to effect the delivery of feed at Tarn Taran in the vehicle of the petitioner-Corporation, bearing Truck No.PUB- 2773. The truck which was being driven by the respondent-workman Vandana 2013.11.19 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.11570 of 1993 2 met with a road accident on 15.07.1982 near village Katani Kalan on Ludhiana-Chandigarh road. The respondent-workman sent a message to his village in the morning of 16.07.1982 and called his cousin at the spot. Leaving the truck in the care of his cousin, respondent-workman went to Ludhiana to fetch a mechanic. However, reaching at the spot respondent-workman learnt from his cousin that the truck had been taken away by the Managing Director of the petitioner-Management, who happened to pass by that truck. He was unable to attend his duties from 15.07.1982 to 17.08.1982 because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. He sent his application for leave to the Mechanical Engineer Sh. M.S.Virdi. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 16.07.1982. Inquiry was conducted against the workman which was concluded against him. A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-workman and finally he was removed from service vide order dated 15.09.1985. The respondent-workman raised the industrial dispute. The re- conciliation proceedings having been failed, the industrial dispute was referred by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court for adjudication. Parties led their respective evidence.
After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that domestic inquiry conducted against respondent- workman was neither fair nor proper. It was further held that inquiry stood vitiated for more than one reasons. Further, the punishment awarded was found wholly dis-proportionate to the charges alleged to Vandana 2013.11.19 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.11570 of 1993 3 have been proved against the respondent-workman. The learned Labour Court held that the only charge which was proved against the workman was absence from duty for some days and leaving of the accidental vehicle unattended. Recording its satisfaction, the learned Labour Court finally directed reinstatement of the respondent- workman in service with continuity of service and 50% backwages by way of impugned award dated 27.04.1993 (Annexure P-9). Hence this writ petition.
The writ petition was admitted for regular hearing and operation of the impugned award was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court by passing vide order dated 21.09.1993. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.
In the absence of any assistance because none has appeared on behalf of the parties, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the issues raised by both the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
It is a matter of record that only allegation against respondent-workman was absence from duty w.e.f. 15.07.1982 to 17.08.1982 and leaving of the accidental vehicle unattended. However, learned Labour Court has rightly come to the definite conclusion assigning cogent reasons in support thereof, that the Vandana 2013.11.19 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.11570 of 1993 4 punishment of removal from service was wholly unwarranted. It was specifically pleaded case on behalf of respondent-workman that he sent an application for leave to the competent authority i.e. Mechanical Engineer, Sh. M.S.Virdi. Learned Labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that the domestic inquiry was neither fair nor proper. In such a situation, the respondent-workman could not have been held guilty of absence from duty. It is so said because Sh. M.S.Virdi, Mechanical Engineer, in his statement before the Inquiry Officer did not deny about the receipt of leave application sent by the respondent-workman. In the absence of any such denial on behalf of the competent authority, there was hardly any scope to record a finding against the respondent-workman that he absented wilfully. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the inquiry was not properly conducted and it was rightly found unfair and improper by the learned Labour Court.
A careful perusal of the impugned award would show that the learned labour Court has assigned cogent reasons while recording positive findings. The reasons assigned by learned labour Court before recording the findings, are as under:-
"No doubt that if the document procured by the enquiry officer is not used by him or referred in the enquiry report against the workman, no prejudice having been caused to the workman, the same is not fatal to the enquiry proceedings. But in the present case, the point of controversy was as to whether the workman had submitted the leave application to Mr. Virdi for the days Vandana 2013.11.19 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.11570 of 1993 5 for which the workman has been held to be absent from duty. Shri Virdi in his statement before enquiry officer did not state that no leave application was submitted by the workman to him. The first point which was got clarified by the enquiry officer from Mr. Virdi was as to whether the workman had applied leave of that period and the answer to that question was that the workman did not send any such application. One of the charges was that the workman was giving low average of the vehicle which had caused damage to the corporation. Shri Virdi has not stated in his statement that the workman did not report regarding the retarding of the time of the vehicle. The second question put to Shri Virdi by the enquiry officer was as to whether the workman had ever reported about the retarding of time to which the reply was negative and the third question was as to whether retarding of time was got corrected and the reply was also negative. Simple saying of the Rep. of respondent that the document was not referred to by the enquiry offcer in his report and was not relied upon while finding the charges to have been proved against the workman is not enough. The charge about absence from duty has been held to have been proved by just referring to the information given by Sh. Virdi that signing of leave application had been refuted by him. There is no such reference by Sh. Virdi in his statement before the enquiry officer but he has simply refuted it in answer to questionare served by the enquiry officer after close of the enquiry and without notice to the workman. Similar the case about the charge of giving low average by the workman. It has been referred that mechanical engineer had refuted the allegation of the driver that time being advanced was informed by the workman to Sh. Virdi. No such refusal Vandana 2013.11.19 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.11570 of 1993 6 find mentioned in the statement made by Shri Virdi in the presence of the workman. In the judgement referred by the Rep. of the respondent it has been held that if material has been used at the back of the delinquent official, then the enquiry is vitiated.
For the reasons mentioned above, the enquiry stand vitiated and there is no prayer by the respondent that they want to prove the charges independent of the enquiry.
The rep. of the workman has further argued that assuming that the enquiry is not vitiated, the punished awarded is wholly disproportionate to the charges alleged to have been proved against the workman. The only charge which was proved against the workman is absence from duty for some days and leaving the accidental vehicle unattended. For these offences removal from service is harsh punishment and should not have been awarded. I fully agree with the rep. of the workman."
The above said findings recorded by learned Labour Court cannot be said to be either misconceived or perverse in any manner. No jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on the record has been found in the impugned award rendered by the learned Labour Court. Further, no prejudice of any kind has been found which might have been caused to the petitioner by passing the impugned award.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is Vandana 2013.11.19 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.11570 of 1993 7 misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference is made out.
Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
October 24, 2013 JUDGE
vandana
Vandana
2013.11.19 10:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document