Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Jeet Ram And Another on 8 March, 2011
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
C.W.P. No.15816 of 2000 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1) C.W.P. No.15816 of 2000
State of Haryana and another
...Petitioners
Versus
Jeet Ram and another
...Respondents
(2) C.W.P. No.14132 of 2001
Jeet Ram
...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer LabourCourt and another
...Respondents
Date of decision:- 08.03.2011
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present: Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG Haryana
for petitioner in CWP No.15816 of 2000 and
for the respondents in CWP No.14132 of 2001.
None of Jeet Ram etc.
MAHESH GROVER, J (Oral).
This order will dispose of two writ petitions i.e. CWP No.15816 of 2000 and CWP No.14132 of 2001, which have been directed against the same Award of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hisar dated 21.10.1999.
Facts are taken from CWP No.15816 of 2000. The respondent-workman Jeet Ram raised the industrial dispute under clause (c) sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and claimed reference to the following effect:- C.W.P. No.15816 of 2000 -2-
"Whether termination of the service of Jeet Ram is justified and in order? If not, alongwith reinstatement to what amount of back wages he is entitled to?"
In the demand notice served upon the workman-Jeet Ram, he had stated that he was employed as 'Beldar' on daily wages and worked continuously with the respondents till 06.08.1996 when his services were terminated for indulging in corrupt practices of releasing private water connections. The show cause notice was issued on 02.08.1996. But without waiting for his reply and without conducting any regular enquiry, the termination order was passed. He thus pleaded that the said order was totally illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
The petitioners contested the claim of the respondent and justified its action. It was stated by them that Jeet Ram was working as a 'Beldar' on daily wages from December 1991 to 6.09.1996. FIR No.430 was registered against him on 10.08.1996 under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was further stated by them that the workman-respondent had admitted his guilt and in view of that, no regular enquiry was conducted. Thus, his services were validly terminated.
The Labour Court framed the following issues:-
1. Whether termination of the service of Jeet Ram is justified and in order? If not, alongwith reinstatement to what amount of back wages he is entitled to?
2. Relief.
While evaluating the material before it, the Tribunal concluded that the misconduct of the respondent-workman stood established but then went on to interfere with the quantum of punishment while exercising his powers under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act and ordered reinstatement of the C.W.P. No.15816 of 2000 -3- respondent-workman without continuity of service and without backwages.
Aggrieved by the said award, both the petitioners and the respondent- workman are in separate writ petitions. No one has put in appearance on behalf of workman.
The Court is left with no other option but to proceed to determine the controversy with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that once the misconduct was fully proved, there was no occasion for the Labour Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment as the allegations against the workman-respondent pertain to his integrity, which stood admitted by him and which admission was never questioned by him to be incorrect or being contrary to law. In this eventuality, the Tribunal was clearly in error when it interefered in the quantum of punishment awarded to the respondent-workman. It was further contended that according to the own-showing of the respondent-workman, he was merely a daily wager and there was no occasion, even to hold an enquiry but yet the petitioners had issued a show cause notice to him to which he did not file any reply and ultimately after holding a preliminary enquiry, the services of the respondent-workman were terminated.
Upon perusal of the impugned award, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court committed patent error while recording its findings regarding the reinstatement of the respondent-workman. It was contended that the confession Ex.M-1, made by him, was never challenged and he neither controverted it nor the manner in which this document came into existence. It has been observed in the award itself that there was no rebuttal to this evidence, rather the respondent did not even say a single word regarding the authenticity of this document. It is also on record and not denied by the respondent-workman that he was facing criminal proceedings in FIR No.430 dated 10.08.1996 for which he stood convicted regarding which, he had filed appeal before the appropriate authority.
In this view of the matter, the employer who wishes to terminate the C.W.P. No.15816 of 2000 -4- services of an employee whose confidence stands eroded by his conduct, cannot be faulted with. According to the own-showing of the respondent, he was a daily wager which is reflected from the claim statement that he had submitted and that being so, the petitioners are not even obliged to hold a regular enquiry, moreso, when the respondent-workman was involved in matters reflecting upon his integrity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs. A.T.Mane reported as 2004(8) JT 103, has observed as follows:-
"11. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment, on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating corporation's fund, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal.
12. This Court in the case of B.S. Hullikatti (supra) held in similar circumstances that the act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent therein was not fit to be retained as a conductor. It also held that in such cases there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and thereby interfere with the quantum of punishment."
Likewise, in The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sohan Lal reported as 2004(8) JT 113, Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India has observed as follows:-
"11. Assuming for argument sake that the High Court by the impugned order proceeded on the basis that though the misconduct is C.W.P. No.15816 of 2000 -5- proved the punishment was disproportionate and it is on that basis that the impugned order is made, even then we are unable to agree with the order of the Appellate Bench of the High Court because it is not the normal jurisdiction of the superior courts to interfere with the quantum of sentence unless the said sentence is wholly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. No such finding has been recorded by the Appellate Bench in the impugned order. Since the misconduct proved is one of dishonesty, the quantum of loss is immaterial, it is the loss of confidence that matters. In such a situation if the Tribunal chooses to uphold the order of dismissal and refuse to interfere with such termination and the learned single Judge of the High Court agreed with the said order of the Tribunal, then Appellate Bench ought not to have interfered with the quantum of sentence. Having perused the facts of the case we are in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal as well as learned single Judge, hence, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellate Bench fell in error in interfering with the orders of the courts below merely on the basis of offer made by the appellant before it."
And in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. M.Chandrasekhar Reddy & Ors. reported as 2005(2) SCC 481, Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India gave similar observation, extract of which is as under:-
"14. The learned counsel for the appellant has rightly relied upon the decisions of this Court in support of her argument. In Air India Corporation (supra) this Court held with reference to loss of confidence as follows :-
"..Once bonafide loss of confidence is affirmed the impugned order must be considered to be immune from challenge.."
In Francis Klein & Company Prviate Ltd. (supra) this Court held :- C.W.P. No.15816 of 2000 -6-
"..In our view when an employer loses confidence in his employee, particularly in respect of a person who is discharging an office of trust and confidence, there can be no justification for directing his reinstatement...."
"..Even this direction is not a valid direction because if once the Company has lost confidence in its employee, it is idle to ask them to employ such a person in another job. What job can there be in a Company which a person can be entrusted with and which does not entail reposing of confidence in that person.."
In Janta Bazaar South Kanara (supra) this Court held :-
"....Once act of misappropriation is proved, may be for a small or large amount, there is no question of showing uncalled for sympathy and reinstating the employees in service. Law on this point is well settled...."
".....In case of proved misappropriation, in our view, there is no question of considering past service record. It is the discretion of the employer to consider the same in appropriate cases, but the Labour Court cannot substitute the penalty imposed by the empoyer in such cases..."
In UPS RTC (supra) this Court held :-
"......The employee has been found to be guilty of misappropriation and in such an event, if the appellant- Corporation loses its confidence vis-a-vis the employee, it will be neither proper nor fair on the part of the Court to substitute the finding and confidence of the employer with that of its own in allowing reinstatement. The misconduct stands proved and in such a situation, by reason of the gravity of the offence, the C.W.P. No.15816 of 2000 -7- Labour Court cannot exercise its discretion and alter the punishment......."
With reference to Section 11-A of the Act, in the case of The Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company Ltd. (supra) this Court held :-
".....Once the misconduct is proved, the Tribunal had to sustain the order of punishment unless it was harsh indicating victimisation...."
"........If a proper enquiry is conducted by an employer and a correct finding arrived at regarding the misconduct, the Tribunal, even though it has now power to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the management, will have to give every cogent reasons for not accepting the view of the employer......"
In CMC Hospital Employees' Union & Anr. (supra) this Court held :-
"....Section 11-A....cannot be considered as conferring an arbitrary power on the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court. The power under Section 11-A of the Act has to be exercised judicially and the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court is expected to interfere with the decision of a management under Section 11-A of the Act only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. The Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court has to give reasons for its decision...."
In our opinion all the above judgments applies with full force to the C.W.P. No.15816 of 2000 -8- facts of this case. The Labour Court has itself come to the conclusion that the management has lost confidence in the respondent. If that be the case the question of it exercising its jurisdiction under Section 11-A to alter or reduce the punishment does not arise." For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned Award deserves to be set aside and CWP No.15816 of 2000 is accpeted, while CWP No.14132 of 2001 is dismissed.
March 08, 2011 (MAHESH GROVER) Jyoti 1 JUDGE