Allahabad High Court
Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Labour Court Iv, U.P., Kanpur And Ors. on 18 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(2)AWC985, [2002(93)FLR202], (2002)IIILLJ63ALL, (2002)2UPLBEC1036
Author: Anjani Kumar
Bench: Anjani Kumar
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner-employer has challenged the award dated 20.3.1996, passed by Labour Court IV, U. P., Kanpur, in Adjudication Case No. 142 of 1993, Annexure-16 to the writ petition.
2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the State Government vide Its order dated 10.8.1983 referred the following dispute under Section 4K of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, for adjudication before the Labour Court IV, U. P., Kanpur, the respondent No. 1 in the present petition :
"Whether the termination of the services of Sri Slpahl Lal, son of Sri Munshi Lal, Binta Weaver (workman) w.e.f. 31.3.1992 by the employer was valid and legal? If not, then to what relief the concerned workman was entitled for etc.?"
3. It is submitted that the employer and the workman concerned have exchanged their written statements and adduced their evidences and argued the matter before the labour court. In the written statement of the workman, it has been stated that the workman was appointed as permanent weaver in the establishment of the employer. It is further submitted that a notice was published against the workman in daily newspaper 'Dalnik Jagaran' that since 26.8.1981 the workman is absenting himself without any sanctioned leave and on the basis of the aforesaid charge without affording any opportunity and without asking for any explanation, an enquiry officer was appointed. After the appointment of the enquiry officer, the workman concerned has requested that he may be permitted to be represented by an authorised representative, but the same was denied by the employer. The statement of two witnesses recorded on behalf of the management/ employer on 15.2.1982 has also not been supplied to the workman, nor the workman was allowed to cross-examine the said witnesses and his services were terminated on 31.3.1992 without giving him any opportunity and without holding any enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the report of the enquiry officer, if any, was neither fair nor proper.
4. The crux of the matter is that since the employer has closed down C-shift of the establishment without prior permission, which has been objected to by the workman concerned and due to the aforesaid action of the workman, the employer being annoyed illegally and arbitrarily terminated the services of the workman. The case of the employer as set out is that since the workman had absented himself without any sanctioned leave or permission, his services have been terminated under Clause 23F of the Standing Order. The employer further stated that in Binta department, there are three shifts and the workmen can be transferred from one shift to another shift and the concerned workman vide order dated 31.5,1991 was directed to be shifted from C-shift to A-shift in the same shed and line, but he has refused to accept the order, then the said order was sent to his own local address, but the same could not be served upon him. In order to avoid service of the order, the workman had proceeded on leave w.e.f. 19.6.1991 to 12.7.1991 and even after resuming his duties, the workman has not reported on his transferred post and absented himself. On 26.7.1991 the workman was found involved in playing cards in the mill premises. Therefore, he was served with a charge-sheet and in connection thereto, he was suspended on 26.7.1991. The workman has submitted his explanation and prayed that he may be excused and on this the workman was punished and suspended for four days. Even this order has not been received by the workman concerned, as such the order was sent by registered post, which has been returned back with the remarks of the postal department as refused. It is further submitted that the workman instead of working in A-shift had absented himself w.e.f. 26.8.1991 and therefore, he was served with another charge-sheet, which too he refused to accept, therefore, a notice was published in the newspaper, only then the workman has presented himself for enquiry. The employer has further stated that the workman has been offered to cross-examine the witnesses and also asked to examine himself or any witness, which he wants to examine. It is only after the misconduct of the concerned workman is proved during the course of the enquiry, the services of the workman have been terminated.
5. If is further stated by the workman concerned that the parties were allowed to adduce their oral "and documentary evidences before the labour court on 22.1.1996, when the entire evidence of the parties were over, a request was made on behalf of the employer that they may be permitted to adduce evidence on the point that domestic enquiry was in accordance with the principles of natural justice and this Issue may be decided as preliminary Issue. This Issue has been refused to be decided as preliminary Issue by the labour court because on earlier several occasion, which were available for the employer to get the preliminary Issue decided, but they have not utilised the same, therefore, the matter will now be decided on merits as the entire evidence and pleadings have been completed. The labour court after considering the evidence of the workman has arrived at the conclusion that without considering the explanation submitted by the workman an enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry officer has not permitted the workman to be represented through an authorised representative, nor did the enquiry officer had afforded the full opportunity to defend himself to the workman concerned. The copy of the enquiry proceedings and the statement of the witnesses have not been supplied to the workman, nor the workman was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and even the report of the enquiry officer has not been supplied to the workman concerned and simultaneously, an order of punishment was passed and only show cause notice has been given to the workman concerned. The labour court has found that because of the aforesaid facts, the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is vitiated and cannot be relied upon against the workman concerned. The labour court has also observed that the employer could not prove that witness of the workman Sri Ram weaver was not telling truth. It was, therefore, decided by the labour court that the enquiry was neither fair nor proper, apart from the same being contrary to the principles of natural justice. At every aspect, the labour court has recorded findings against the employer and said that such an action of termination has been taken because the workman concerned had opposed the Illegal transfer of the workmen and It Is in fact the employer who have not taken any work from the workman from 26.8.1991 and the averment to the contrary by the employer that the workman had been absenting himself, Is not correct. The labour court has further held that the charge-sheet issued to the workman and the enquiry conducted by the employer is contrary to the principles of natural justice because the workman concerned has neither been afforded any opportunity, nor has been given the material on which the enquiry officer has relied upon, therefore, the termination of the services of the workman was found to be illegal and void and the labour court issued a direction that the workman is entitled for reinstatement with the continuity of service with full back wages.
6. In the teeth of the aforesaid findings, learned counsel for the petitioner-employer tries to argue the matter that the labour court has taken an incorrect view, which suffers from the manifest error of law. Learned counsel for the employer could not substantiate his arguments, nor has been able to substantiate that the findings recorded by the labour court are perverse.
7. This being the legal position, this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with the findings recorded by the labour court and the award of the labour court does not warrant any interference, the writ petition being devoid of any merits is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, parties shall bear their own costs.