Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs State Of Raj & Ors on 8 May, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1056 / 2003
M/S Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, Devika Tower, 11 th Floor, 6,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 through its Authorized Signatory
now Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited having its registered
office at SPARC, Tandalja, Vadodara-390020 and its Corporate
Office at Sun House, Plot No. 201B/1, Western Express Highway,
Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063, through its power of attorney
holder Shri Jayesh B. Shah presently the Authorized Signatory of
M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited working at its
Corporate Office at Sun House, Plot No. 201 B/1, Western Express
Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Labour,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Judge, Labour Court No.2, Shanti Nagar, Opposite NBC,
Hasanpura, Jaipur.
3. Shri Mahesh Kumar Asnani c/o Shri Chetan Asnani, Flat No.145,
Sector 15, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2134 / 2005 Mahesh Kumar Asnani S/o SH. Chetan Asnani Aged about 52 years, R/o Flat No. No.145, Sector 15, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. Chief Managing Director re-designated as C.E.O. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, 19 Nehru Place Delhi-110019. Presently putting up at Ranbaxy Lab. Ltd. Corporate Office Plot No.90, Sector-32, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122001.
2. Personnel Manager, re-designated as General Manager Human Resources (Industrial Relations) Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, 25, Nehru Place, Delhi. Presently putting up at Western Edge-I, Unit 201204 (II Floor), Western Express High way Borivali (West) Mumbai-400066.
3. Distribution Supervisor (D.S) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.3 Transport Nagar Jaipur. Presently putting up 90-92, Gandhi Path, Nemi Nagar, Jaipur.
4. Judge, Labour Court No.2, Jaipur.
(2 of 10) [ CW-2134/2005]
5. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Acme Plaza, Andheri- Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059 through its Chairman.
6. The Managing Director, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Acme Plaza, Andheri-Kurla Road Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059.
---Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Achintya Kaushik.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prahlad Singh.
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 08th May 2017 Both the writ petitions seek to assail the award dated 23.11.2002 passed by the labour Court, No.2, Jaipur whereby the labour Court has set aside the termination order dated 6.9.1996 passed by the employer and has directed reinstatement of the petitioner on the post of Medical Field Coordinator in the present pay scale and with continuity of service. While the workman- petitioner has assailed it to the extent it denies back wages and increments of pay and has also assailed the earlier order dated 14.03.2000 whereby the enquiry was held to be fair and proper; the employer Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as 'employer') has in their petition challenged the reinstatement.
(2) The main submission of the employer in their petition is that the labour Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in reinstating him even after concurring with the finding of the enquiry officer and even after accepting that the management had (3 of 10) [ CW-2134/2005] conducted fair and proper enquiry and had found employee Mahesh Kumar Asnani guilty of alleged misconduct. It is submitted that by a detailed order the labour Court has reached to the conclusion and passed an order dated 14.03.2000 that the respondent employee had been given fair opportunity by the enquiry Officer during the course of the enquiry but the respondent-employee failed to participate in the proceedings which were ultimately concluded by the enquiry officer. Several chances were given to the employee to put up his defence. Copy of the proceedings were made available to the delinquent employee. The argument raised regarding non-supply of enquiry report was also found to be not proved. The employer had submitted that thrice the enquiry report was made available to the respondent-workman firstly by post, secondly personally, and thereafter thirdly he was supplied copy of the enquiry report in front of the Conciliation Officer. The labour Court also reached to the conclusion that inspite of three opportunities being given even if it is found that the enquiry report was not made available, no prejudice has been caused and therefore, the enquiry was treated as fair. The petitioner employer, therefore, submits that the order passed by the labour Court was unjustified. By another order passed by the labour Court dated 12.03.2001, wherein amendment was claimed on the issue relating to the respondent being within the meaning of workman, it was held by the Court that no new amendments are required.
(4 of 10) [ CW-2134/2005] (3) Learned Counsel for the respondent workman has also filed writ petition wherein he has assailed the decision of the labour Court in declaring enquiry as fair. It is submitted by the petitioner that the enquiry officer conducted enquiry at New Delhi and at that time the petitioner had prayed that the enquiry be conducted fairly. It is submitted that one witness Shri ML Dharwal who was solely produced by the management could not be cross- examined. It is stated that when the enquiry was scheduled for 24.11.1995 but the petitioner could not attend the enquiry on account of his wife's sickness and sent a fax message and a telephonic message was also sent. However, deliberately at the instance of the management, enquiry officer examined the management witness on that day and closed the evidence without completion of cross-examination. It is thus submitted that only management witness could not be cross-examined and therefore, the enquiry was glaringly unfair. On the next day also it is submitted that the petitioners' defence representative could not reach to Delhi as he was posted at Sriganganagar but no further opportunity was given to the petitioner and thus the enquiry ought not to have been declared fair.
(4) It is further submitted that enquiry proceedings were initiated against him but no formal charge sheet was ever framed or issued to the petitioner and in absence thereof the charges ought to be declared as vague and ambiguous. The further submission of the petitioner in the writ petition is that once the labour Court was seized with the matter, it could not have (5 of 10) [ CW-2134/2005] declared the enquiry as fair, in view of the fact that in the charge sheet there was no statement of charges, the entire proceedings ought to be declared as vitiated in law. Even otherwise the order is a non-speaking order and does not assert reasons for reaching to the conclusions.
(5) The learned Counsel has relied upon judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78 : Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar as well as Union of India Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan : (1991) SCC 588. He also relies on judgment reported in AIR 1986 SC 995: Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and (2013) 6 515: Anant R.Kulkarni Vs. Y.P.Education Society to buttress his submissions regarding framing charges and enquiry report was not supplied. The petitioner also relies on judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala & Anrs. Vs. Ram Nivas Bansal (dead) through Lrs. : (2014) 12 SCC 106 with regard to quantum of punishment being wholly disproportionate. Learned Counsel also relies upon (2014) 2 SCC 600: Management of Sundaram Industrial Ltd. Vs. Sundaram Industries Employees Union. It is submitted that minimum requirement of the rule of law is that evidence should be placed before the Court or the Tribunal or the authority to prove the charges and the same cannot be on basis of surmises and conjectures. Although probabilities can be many, there has to be a preponderance of probabilities to hold the person guilty of the charge. The petitioner relies upon judgment in the case of MV Bijlani Vs. Union of (6 of 10) [ CW-2134/2005] India & Ors.: (2006) 5SCC 88, Roop Singh Negi Vs. P.N.B. & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 570, Nirmala J.Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & Anrs. : (2013) 4 301.
(6) With regard to denial of back wages, the learned Counsel for the employee also relies on judgment passed in case of Fisheries Department, State of Urrat Pradesh Vs. Charan Singh: 2015 Volume 8 SCC 150 wherein the Supreme Court observed in para 18 as under : -
"18. In the present case, there has been an absence of cogent evidence adduced on record by the appellant to justify the termination of the services of the respondent- workman, who has been aggrieved by the non-awarding of back wages from the date of termination till the date of passing the Award by the Industrial Tribunal. There is no justification for the Industrial Tribunal to deny the back wages for the said period without assigning any cogent and valid reasons. Therefore, the denial of back wages to the respondent even though the Industrial Tribunal has recorded its finding on the contentious question no.1 in the affirmative in his favour and in the absence of evidence of gainful employment of the respondent during the relevant period, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power by the Industrial Tribunal for no fault of the respondent and the same is contrary to law as laid down by this Court in a catena of cases. Hence, it is a fit case for this Court to exercise its power under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to award back wages to the respondent, even though the respondent has not filed a separate writ petition questioning that portion of the Award wherein no back wages were awarded to him by the Courts below for the relevant period. The respondent has got a right to place reliance upon the said provision of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and show to this Court that the findings recorded by both the Courts below in denying back wages for the relevant period of time in the impugned judgment and Award is bad in law as the same is not only erroneous but also error in law."
(7 of 10) [ CW-2134/2005] Counsel also relies upon the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education: 2016(6) SCC 541.
(7) Per contra, learned Counsel for the employer submits that the challenge made by the petitioner to the order dated 14.03.2000 is an afterthought. Once the order was passed and the enquiry was held to be fair the employee took a chance to contest the case before the labour Court and realising that the reinstatement order has been passed without back wages in favour of the employee and also realising that the impugned award is defective, in order to save the award, the order of holding the enquiry as fair has been challenged collaterally while claiming back wages also. The contention of the employee that he was not given fair opportunity to contest the enquiry is misleading and false. The enquiry officer has given its report after examining all the aspects of the matter. The charges levelled against the petitioner are of much serious in nature, which were dealt with by the enquiry officer at length after giving him fair opportunity. However, inspite of several opportunities having been given to him, he did not take the said opportunities in serious manner and did not appear for cross-examining the witnesses. Once he came to know that the witnesses are present for enquiry, he deliberately absented himself. The labour Court after examining in detail reached to the conclusion that the enquiry was fair. Once it reaches to its conclusion that the enquiry was fair, the decision of the labour Court to set aside the enquiry proceedings, was wholly (8 of 10) [ CW-2134/2005] unjustified. The employee was guilty of having claimed benefit in fraudulent manner. It was wrongful on the part of the labour Court to have awarded reinstatement once it reached to a final conclusion that all the three charges were rightly found to be proved against the employee. It appears that the labour Court has proceeded on uncalled for and unwarranted sympathy towards the respondent workman.
(8) Having considered the submissions, I find that the labour Court while passing the order dated 14.03.2000, has rightly held the enquiry to be fair and justified. The copy of the enquiry report has been offered to the petitioner who did not deliberately take the same. Even otherwise the order passed by the labour Court regarding non-supply of enquiry report having caused no prejudice to the workman employee is justified. The purpose of supplying enuqiry report has been highlighted by the Constitutional Bench in the case of ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727. It has been clearly held that if no prejudice has been caused or is found to have been caused, non-supply of enquiry report could not vitiate the enquiry. Admittedly, the labour Court has directed that before examining the case of the petitioner on merits relating to punishment, copy of enquiry report would be made available to him and the workman claimant would be entitled to raise issues relating to enquiry report before the labour Court at the time of final adjudication. (9) At the time of final adjudication, on 23.11.2002 the labour Court has discussed all the three aspects of the matter and (9 of 10) [ CW-2134/2005] also enquiry report and has reached to the finding that all the three charges stand wholly proved against the workman employee. In the circumstances considering the nature of charges, I find that punishment does not shock the conscience of the Court nor it can be said that the punishment does not commensurate with the charges levelled against him. The award therefore with regard to direction of reinstatement merely because of the 10 years of service rendered by the workman cannot be allowed to be sustained and is apparently is on basis of misplaced sympathy. It is settled law that misplaced sympathy cannot be a source of adjudication once the employee workman has been found to be guilty of wrong reporting, misuse of post as well as drawing amount unfairly. The punishment cannot be said to be excessive and the order passed by the labour Court therefore cannot be sustained.
(10) Learned Counsel for the petitioner-employee has not been able to show that there is a deficiency in communication for initiating enquiry by the Ranbaxy laboratory. Admittedly, the petitioner was having knowledge of the nature of charges levelled against him which cannot be said in any manner vague. The judgments cited by the workman employee do not have any application to the facts and circumstances of the present case especially in view of facts and nature of charges and the instance alleged for which the enquiry has been conducted. The petitioner himself is to blame for not participating in the enquiry for which the enquiry cannot be held to be unfair. As stated above, non-
(10 of 10) [ CW-2134/2005] supply of enquiry report can only vitiate the enquiry if prejudice has been caused. The employee workman has not been able to show as to how prejudice has been caused to him especially when the labour Court while declaring the enquiry as fair allowed the petitioner to raise arguments relating to enquiry report during the proceedings before the labour Court and the labour Court has also examined the enquiry report at length and found independently that the charges levelled against the workman were rightly held to be proved.
(11) In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition No.2134/2005 filed by the petitioner-workman Mahesh Kumar Asnani as against the order passed by the labour Court is rejected and the writ petition No.1056/2003 filed by the Ranbaxy Laboratory is allowed and the award passed by the labour Court of reinstatement of petitioner-workman is quashed and set aside.
(12) Parties to bear own costs.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)J.
N.Gandhi/