Dadarao Motiram Bhanawat vs Janata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Others

R.K. Deshpande, J.—The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 30.09.2006 passed by the Labour Court, dismissing Complaint (ULP) No. 23 of 2004 challenging the dismissal of the petitioner from service after holding an enquiry. The petition also challenges the order dated 04.02.2006 passed by the Labour Court deciding the preliminary issue regarding fairness and legality of the enquiry held by the Management. These orders were the subject matter of challenge before the Industrial Court under Section 44 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P Act in Revision (ULP) No. 46 of 2006, which has been dismissed on 11.10.2007. Hence, this writ petition.

The petitioner was working as Senior Clerk in the School run by the respondents since 1987. On 24.07.2002, show cause notice was issued to him, levelling certain charges of misbehaviour, misconduct and threatening the Principal of the College. The petitioner was suspended on 31.08.2002 and thereafter was dismissed from service after holding an enquiry. Both the courts below have held that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was fair and proper and the charges levelled against the petitioner have been established.

The petitioner appearing in person has invited my attention to Paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of his complaint in which averments are made as under;

"5..........The applicant has also requested for allowing the applicant to examine the witnesses from the list of defence witnesses which the applicant has submitted to the inquiry committee. However, the request of the applicant has been rejected as appears from the report. In the explanation submitted by the applicant, it has been mentioned that the points raised in the cross examination on 23.07.2002 and 24.08.2002 have not been taken into consideration. It was also requested that 14 employees who were present on the occasion of the incident on 23.07.2002 and on 24.08.2002 should be called in the inquiry. But the inquiry committee has rejected the application of the applicant. ........

6............... Similarly the applicant has not been allowed to submit statement of defence. Not only this, but the defence witnesses, the list of which has already been submitted have not been allowed to be examined in the inquiry. From this, it is evident that the inquiry is not being held according to the principal of natural justice".

It is alleged that the petitioner had submitted an application for examination of witnesses in defence, which was denied to him. The Petitioner submits that he was not permitted to examine any of the witnesses in defence although such a request was made before the Enquiry Committee. The reply of the Management before the Labour Court was that the petitioner was not cooperative and he indulged in abusing not only the respondent no. 2 but even the Members of the Enquiry Committee. It is further the stand taken that the persons whose names were included in the list of witnesses were directly or indirectly the members of the unlawful assembly on 23.07.2002 and therefore, cannot be called by the Management to examine as witnesses.

The Labour Court has dealt with this aspect of the matter in paragraph 8 of its order dated 04.02.2006, deciding the preliminary issue. The finding is recorded that the petitioner did not submit the list of witnesses before the Enquiry Committee and he has not produced anything on record to substantiate the contention. In the light of the stand taken by the respondent in response to a ground of not permitting the complainant to examine the witnesses in defence, I have perused the record and proceeding of the Labour Court. The record page No. 204 is an application submitted to the Conveynor of the Enquiry Committee by the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted the names of 14 witnesses to be examined in support of his defence. The finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner has not produced anything on record, to substantiate this contention, is therefore, apparently erroneous, particularly when the Management has accepted that no such witnesses were called for evidence. Shri Kasat, the learned counsel for the respondent could not substantiate these findings. The proceedings of enquiry and the ultimate order of the punishment, therefore, stands vitiated for failure to provide the petitioner an opportunity to examine the witnesses in defence . The findings recorded by the Courts below cannot, therefore, be sustained.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 30.09.2006 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 23 of 2004 and the order dated 04.02.2006 passed by the Labour Court deciding the preliminary objection, along with the order dated 11.10.2007 passed by the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No. 46 of 2006 are hereby quashed and set aside. The complaint is partly allowed. The Management is directed to conduct the enquiry from the stage of examination of the witnesses of the petitioner in defence. The petitioner shall cooperate with the management in producing the witnesses before the Enquiry Committee and any non-cooperation on the part of the petitioner shall be recorded in the minutes of meeting. The Management shall pass appropriate orders regarding reinstatement of the complainant in service along with or without backwages after the final decision of the Enquiry Committee.

Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order as to costs.