Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

My findings on the enquiry issue are as under:­ Issue no.1 It is seen from the record that the workman has appeared in his workman evidence as WW1, tendered his affidavit by way of evidence Ex.WW1/A as also relied upon documents Exts.WW1/1 to WW1/9, along with an alleged letter dated 07.02.2006 Mark A, on record. In his affidavit by way of evidence Ex.WW1/A on the enquiry issue, the workman has deposed that he had been in the employment of M/s Hindustan Times Ltd. since July, 1986 as a Senior Clerk/Railway Dispatcher; that he was an active member of the Hindustan Times Employees Union and was elected as office D.I.D. No. 44/09 Page 14 out of 54 secretary in the executive committee meeting of the Hindustan Times Employees Union, elections of which had been held on 03rd September, 2005 as per the constitution of Hindustan Times Employees Union, Delhi; that he was declared as protected workman as per Section 33 (4) of the I.D. Act, 1947 by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, New Delhi vide order dated 03.11.2005; that being the elected office secretary of the said union, he along with the other office bearers started pursuing the case of the 362 illegally retrenched employees by the management who were working in the printing undertaking of Hindustan Times Ltd. along with taking action in other cases also; that due to his active participation in the bonafide trade union activities the management got irked and implicated him in a false charge of gross misconduct and charge sheeted him vide charge sheet dated 24.10.2005; that the management of M/s Hindustan Times Ltd.vide its charge sheet dated 24.10.2005 had made false allegation of habitual absenteeism against him belatedly to which he had replied to vide reply dated 28.10.2005 whereby the alleged charges had been denied being wrong and baseless since whenever he availed leave, he had given proper leave application; that the charge sheet was issued by an incompetent authority; that he was neither the appointing authority nor a competent authority to take such decision; that moreover, explanations given earlier in response to memos had been D.I.D. No. 44/09 Page 15 out of 54 accepted by the management and as such there was no basis of holding enquiry in this regard except for malafide considerations; that at no stage the workman had accepted the alleged charges as made known vide enquiry officer's report and dismissal order dated 18.02.2006; that the enquiry officer was unbecoming of an enquiry officer; that the enquiry officer did not conduct the enquiry as per the principles of natural justice, rule of law, fair play and equity; that he was not provided free, fair, equal, reasonable, effective opportunity to defend himself; that no document was supplied to him along with the charge sheet and nor the same was given during the course of enquiry proceeding; that no enquiry was conducted in his matter by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer closed the enquiry proceedings on the ground that he had admitted his charges; that this was completely untrue; that the enquiry officer Mr. Satish Ahuja acted as an enquiry officer in many matter during that period and in all matters he cheated the entire employees and did not conduct the enquiry in any matter; that all the employees had complained and protested against his such acts of cheating; that the alleged misconduct was not proved in the enquiry but still deliberately in collusion and at the behest of the management, he was declared to be guilty by the biased and prejudiced enquiry officer; that it was a predetermined decision; that the enquiry officer acted with a biased, closed and prejudicial D.I.D. No. 44/09 Page 16 out of 54 mind against him; that he was not allowed the services of the defence assistance during enquiry owing to which the enquiry was vitiated, as such the findings of the same are liable to be set aside; that the management served a show cause notice dated 02.02.2006 which he had replied to vide reply dated 07.02.2006 but the management had also not considered the same properly and dismissed him from service vide order dated 18.02.2006; that "on account of illness" vide letter dated 08.08.2006, he had protested against the dismissal order so made and following which the Hindustan Times Employees Union had also vide its letter dated 08.09.2006 had demanded for withdrawal of said dismissal order and reinstatement in service with the back wages and consequential benefits arising therefrom; that the management had not replied to his above said letters as well as of the Hindustan Times Employees Union due to which the present Industrial Dispute had arisen for holding the said dismissal order as wrong and illegal and for his reinstatement in service; that in the given facts and circumstances of the case the alleged charges as leveled vide charge sheet dated 24.10.2005 cannot be said to have been proved, accordingly, dismissal order so made was wholly malafide, wrong, illegal, unfair and unjustified; that the workman was declared a protected workman by the ALC, New Delhi vide order dated 03.11.2005 being an activist and office bearer of the Hindustan D.I.D. No. 44/09 Page 17 out of 54 Times Employees Union as such the management ought to have taken approval or permission as required in terms of section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act which also had not been done, accordingly, the order of dismissal so made was not sustainable; that he had been harassed and victimized by way of suspension, leveling false charges, holding enquiry in an unfair and illegal manner against the principles of natural justice and thereafter, imposing the penalty of dismissal, which was wholly disproportionate as such merits to be set aside; that the enquiry had been held with a biased and prejudiced mind in collusion with the management, which resorted to such an act of unfair labour practice with a view to reduce the staff which was a colorable exercise of power; that the workman had been wrongly and illegally charge sheeted with malafide intention and ulterior motives despite commission of no misconduct or misconducts by him; that the enquiry was got conducted by a biased interested enquiry officer who worked as an agent of the management and worked for the interest of the management; that without an enquiry the enquiry officer declared the workman guilty of the charge; that the charge of habitual absenteeism was not proved and as such the enquiry officer could not have decided against him; that no enquiry was conducted and falsely stating that he admitted the charges, the enquiry officer declared him guilty; that this was extremely false and incorrect; that D.I.D. No. 44/09 Page 18 out of 54 in his reply to the show cause notice dated 02.02.2006, he had replied to this in detail vide reply dated 07.02.2006 and relied upon the same but the same was not relied upon much to the prejudice of his defence; that the enquiry report was perverse and the dismissal order so made was liable to be set aside and the enquiry proceedings were liable to be declared vitiated in the interest of justice.

A. His report was self sufficient according to which he had explained the procedure.

That it was incorrect to suggest that he did not follow the procedure as he had explained to the workman; that the procedure followed by him was a matter of record; that the procedure followed manifests from the proceeding sheet of the enquiry proceeding; that it was incorrect that he did not explain to the workman that there would be a stage where a workman would be required to admit or deny the charge; that it was correct that he did not explain the consequences of admission or denial of charges; that it was incorrect that he did not explain the meaning of charges of habitual absenteeism and habitual late coming; that it was correct that he did not explain the consequences if the charges were proved as there was no stage for the same; that it was because of the fact that the workman had admitted to the charge; that the punishment was not within his domain but was prerogative of the administration; that it was correct that he did not explain the consequences of the admission of the workman in context to Section 14 (2) (e) and 12 (2) (f) of the certified standing order; that he considered the explanation of the workman dated 28.10.2005 in his report; that it was correct that he did not enquire from the MR for leave application of the workman as the workman had already D.I.D. No. 44/09 Page 26 out of 54 admitted the charge; that it was correct that on the first day of the enquiry only the procedure relating to the enquiry was explained to the parties; that as an enquiry officer, he also enquired from the charge sheeted employee or the management representative for filing of documents or bringing of defence representative etc. on the first day; that no defence representative had appeared on behalf of the charge sheeted employee; that he did not ask specifically if the charge sheeted employee wanted to bring any defence representative. Vol. Such occasion did not arise as he admitted the charges; that the management was duly represented by a management representative; that the charge sheeted employee signs at each proceeding sheets after reading the contents thereon; that it was incorrect to suggest that all the proceeding sheets were signed by the charge sheeted employee at the end of the enquiry proceedings on the given date; that the proceeding on next page was recorded only after the previous proceedings sheet was signed by the parties; that it was incorrect that this was not a normal practice that prior to recording the proceedings of the next page, the previous page was mandatorily signed; that he could not say if such procedure was laid down in the standing order. Vol. This was a normal practice; that it was incorrect to suggest that he obtained the signature of the charge sheeted employee on each page without giving him the proceeding sheets for his reading and D.I.D. No. 44/09 Page 27 out of 54 understanding; that it was wrong to suggest that the workman herein kept on continuously signing individual sheets one after the other independently; that it was wrong to suggest that he did not explain the charges to the workman concerned; that on page 3 of his proceeding dated 11.11.2005 the fact regarding explaining the charges was contained at point A to A; that as per him reading and explaining the charges was one and the same thing; that as per his reading of charges was as good as explaining the same; that there was no such specific recording in the proceeding mentioning that he had explained the meaning of habitual absenteeism and late coming; that it was correct that documents Ex.M1 to M15 filed by the management during the proceedings were neither admitted nor denied by the workman concerned; that it was correct that he did not enquire from the workman anything regarding this document; that it was also correct that he did not ask the workman whether he wanted to put any question to the management representative regarding these exhibited documents; that it was a matter of record whether the management had filed any document pertaining to charge sheet dated 13.02.2003 and May 13, 2003 regarding poor attendance during the enquiry proceedings; (that after pursuing the record witness says that no such document was filed by the management in the enquiry); that it was correct that he did not provide the Hindi version of standing order to D.I.D. No. 44/09 Page 28 out of 54 the workman concerned; that it was further correct that he did not grant him any opportunity to go through the standing orders or even the Hindi standing orders; that it was correct that Ex.WW1/4 was filed by the management in the enquiry which was marked as Ex. M12 in the enquiry which was the explanation of the workman to the charge sheet served upon him; that it was correct that he did not conduct any enquiry from the department where the workman was posted to ascertain the fact relating to the habitual late coming and habitual absenteeism of the workman; that he also did not enquire from the concerned department as to whether the workman concerned was giving proper application for his leave and late coming; that he also did not enquire regarding the entitlement of 15 days sick leave, 16 casual leave, 30 days privileged leave as per the rules applicable on him from the management; that it was a matter of record whether the management had filed any document including show cause notice to show the habitual absenteeism or late coming of the workman except the charge sheet; that it was wrong to suggest that the workman never admitted the charge of habitual absenteeism and habitual late coming; that it was wrong to suggest that he did not conduct the enquiry in accordance with principles of natural justice, rule of law, fair play and equity; that it was wrong to suggest that he did not provide free, fair, equal, reasonable and effective opportunity D.I.D. No. 44/09 Page 29 out of 54 to the workman to defend himself during the enquiry; that it was wrong to suggest that there was no document on record or evidence against the workman herein to suggest that the workman committed the alleged misconduct as stated in the charge sheet; that it was wrong to suggest that the document placed by the management bearing exhibit no. M1 to M15 did not prove even prima facie that the workman was involved in misconduct of habitual absenteeism and habitual late coming; that it was wrong to suggest that he did not conduct any enquiry at the behest of the management and closed the enquiry by cheating the workman on the false ground that the workman admitted the charges; that it was wrong to suggest that there was no document on record to show that the workman habitually absented without leave for ten days in any year; that it was correct that he did not enquire from the workman as to whether he was absent without leave for more than ten days in a year. Vol. No such occasion arose in view of his admission to the charges; that it was a matter of record as to whether the workman absented for ten days in a year; that it was correct that the management did not file any document showing that the workman concerned was habitually absent without leave or without permission for more than ten days and regarding habitually late coming in a year during the enquiry; that it was wrong to suggest that he acted as a mouth piece of the management and recorded the D.I.D. No. 44/09 Page 30 out of 54 proceedings as per the dictates of management representative; that it was wrong to suggest that he acted with closed and biased mind to any how hold the workman guilty of charges for hefty consideration; that he did not remember whether he had conducted the enquiry of S/Sh.J.S.Tripathi, R.S. Bhati, S.K.Pandey and other employees of Hindustan Times in the same way and concluded their enquiry on the first day itself in a similar way as the present enquiry and held them guilty in similar fashion, recording that they had admitted the charges; that he did not remember if concluded the said enquiry also in one hour of the same day; that it was wrong to suggest that he obtained the signatures of charge sheeted employee of Hindustan Times by cheating them; that he did not know whether the charge sheeted employees of Hindustan Times protested against his conduct or that they asked the management to conduct the enquiry afresh; that it was wrong to suggest that the charge sheeted employees asked him to conduct the enquiry afresh but he refused the same; that it was wrong to suggest that the enquiry report was perverse; that his report was self explanatory as to whether he had considered what materials and documents placed before him including the documents pertaining to charge sheet dated 13.02.2003 and 13.05.2003; that he did not give the enquiry report to the management in Hindi; that it was wrong to suggest that he was deposing falsely.

(e) and 14 (2) (f) of the Certified Standing Orders for Non­ Journalists employees which was applicable to the workman with the further definition of the Section 14 (2) (e)­ " habitual absence without leave for more than 10 days". 14 (2) (f)­ " late attendance for more than 5 days in a year", was not conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice, rule of law, fair play and equity by virtue of D.I.D. No. 44/09 Page 32 out of 54 management being prejudiced against him on account of his allegedly being a protected workman by virtue of having been elected the office Secretary of the subject union in respect of the employees of the management and accordingly, the management had made false allegations of habitual absenteeism against him; that he had allegedly not admitted to the alleged charges which had been denied by him vide his reply dated 28.10.2005 Ex.WW1/4; that he had not been provided free, fair, equal, reasonable, effective opportunity to defend himself by the enquiry officer in the enquiry; that no document had been supplied to him along with the charge sheet nor the same was given during the course of the enquiry proceedings; that no enquiry was conducted in his matter by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer closed the enquiry proceedings on the ground that he had admitted his charges, which was completely untrue; that the enquiry officer Mr. Satish Ahuja acted as an enquiry officer in many matters during that period and in all matters he cheated the entire employees and did not conduct the enquiry in any matter; that all the employees had complained and protested against his such acts of cheating; that the alleged misconduct was not proved in the enquiry but still deliberately in collusion and at the behest of the management, the workman was declared to be guilty by the biased and prejudiced enquiry officer; that the enquiry officer acted with a biased, closed D.I.D. No. 44/09 Page 33 out of 54 and prejudiced mind against him; that the workman was not allowed the services of the defence assistant during enquiry owing to which enquiry stands vitiated and its findings are liable to be set aside, however, it is seen from the record that vide the enquiry proceedings admitted by the workman to having been held in his respect in his cross examination on behalf of the management in workman evidence on enquiry issue, on record, Ex.WW1/M­1 admittedly bearing his signatures at Points A to G thereon (as also Ex.MW1/1 Colly, on record), the workman has participated in the subject enquiry proceedings on the date of hearing viz. 11.11.2005 fixed in the same, as is evident from his signatures admitted by him at Points A to G thereon wherein it has been mentioned that (True English translation rendered by the Court) the enquiry officer has explained the procedure of the enquiry in detail to both the parties which would be that in order to prove the allegations of misconduct on the part of the management against the workman, the management would be afforded opportunity first to lead its witnesses/evidence in this regard against the workman in the enquiry with opportunity to the workman to cross examine/rebut the same; that after conclusion of the management evidence in the enquiry, the charge sheeted employee would then be given an opportunity to present witnesses/evidence in his defence with the opportunity to the management to cross D.I.D. No. 44/09 Page 34 out of 54 examine/rebut the same; that on the closure of evidence on behalf of both the parties, the enquiry proceedings would be concluded and report on the same given by the enquiry officer to the management; that during the proceedings of the enquiry as per the standing orders of the management, the charge sheeted employee would be afforded the facility of being assisted by a defence assistant; that the proceedings of the enquiry would be signed by the enquiry officer as also both the parties on each page of its proceedings and only thereafter, the writing of the next page of the enquiry proceedings would commence; that in case the charge sheeted employee wished to inspect any document in respect of the charges against him or take notes from the same or even to take photocopy of the same then due opportunity would be afforded to him in this regard; that copy of the each enquiry proceedings would be supplied to each party and their signatures in lieu of the receipt of the same taken; that the delinquent employee/charge sheeted employee has submitted that he had received the charge sheet and has read and understood the contents of the same; that the contents of chargesheet have been read to the charge sheeted employee who has been asked as to whether he admits the charges against him; that the charge sheeted employee has accepted the charges against him. Sd/­ Charge sheeted employee. 11.11.2005; that it has been submitted by the representative of the D.I.D. No. 44/09 Page 35 out of 54 management that since the charge sheeted employee has accepted/admitted the charges against him, accordingly, the management did not wish to produce any witness against the charge sheeted employee in the enquiry and the documents relating to the charges would be submitted, on record, for which permission be given to the management; that permission has been granted to the management representative in this regard; that the management representative has presented/brought on record the following documents on behalf of the management:­

D.I.D. No. 44/09 Page 43 out of 54 I find, from the record that no serious effort has been made or any evidence led on the part of the workman in his workman evidence, on record, to show/prove that his above said allegations in respect of the conduct of the enquiry on the part of the management vide Ex.MW1/1 Colly (as also Ex.WW1/M­1) along with Exts MW1/2 and MW1/3, as above said, have caused any prejudice to him, which is a sine qua non for any alleged violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the management qua the enquiry held in respect of the charge sheet dated 24.10.2005, Ex.WW1/3, against the workman, the subject matter of the instant issue and accordingly, I find from the record that the said allegations as leveled by the workman against the subject enquiry conducted by the management in respect of the charge sheet dated 24.10.2005 of the management in his respect are nothing but bald allegations on the part of the workman against the same in his workman evidence, on record, as already observed hereinabove, and accordingly, do not stand proved, on record. It is further seen from the record that even though it has been alleged by the workman that he had not admitted to the charges of the management as leveled against him in the charge sheet dated 24.10.2005, Ex.WW1/3, as above said, of his being a habitual absentee and late comer in his duties with the management, having absented from his duties with the management without prior D.I.D. No. 44/09 Page 44 out of 54 information/permission for 52 days and having reported late for duties on a total number of 57 days during the period w.e.f. January to September, 2005 amounting to misconduct under section 14 (2) (e) and 14 (2) (f) of the Certified Standing Orders for Non­ Journalists employees of the management like the workman and accordingly, applicable to the workman being " habitual absence without leave for more than 10 days" and " late attendance for more than 5 days in a year" respectively, vide his reply dated 28.10.2005 to the same, Ex.WW1/4, however, from a reading of the same, it is evident that there is no refuttal/rebuttal of the charges as leveled by the management against the workman vide its above mentioned charge sheet dated 24.10.2005, Ex.WW1/3, in his respect, the delinquent employee/charge sheeted employee/workman having infact expressed his regret for his absence from his duties without prior permission as also being late for his duties on account of his alleged family circumstances as mentioned therein viz. that his wife was sick for the last few years; that he got her treatment from various places but her disease could not be diagnosed; that he was only male member in his house; that he had to take care of his children; that he admits that he often reached late in the office and also even remained absent from duty; that in any case he informed his in­charge; that he further assures not to give any chance of complaint in future, which have D.I.D. No. 44/09 Page 45 out of 54 been considered by the enquiry officer qua the charge sheeted employee/delinquent employee/workman in his enquiry report Ex.MW1/2, on record, and I, thus, find no merit in the allegation of the workman that he had not admitted to the charges as leveled against him by the management vide its charge sheet dated 24.10.2005 in his respect, Ex.WW1/3, as above said, on record, in his reply dated 28.10.2005, as above said, to the same, Ex.WW1/4, on record.