Project and Development India Ltd. (B) vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others

V.K. Gupta, C.J.—The writ-petitioner, M/s. Projects & Development India Limited is a Government of India Undertaking. Respondent No. 2, Pandit Vasudev Prabhas Rao at the relevant time, was working as Senior Technician with the petitioner-Company. On 14.12.1991, he was served with the charge-sheet in terms of Clause 25(24) of the Standing Certified Orders for having committed misconduct, viz. theft, fraud, dishonesty, deception and corrupt practices in connection with the Company''s property etc. The gravemen of the charge was that for the year 1981 (the period between 5.1.1981 to 22.1.1981), he submitted false claim with respect to L.T.C. showing that he alongwith his family members traveled from Nirsa to Trivendrum by Luxury Coach Bus No. WMH-6231 belonging to Dipti Travels, a Travel Agent which was supposed to have registration No. 1938 and address at G.T. Road, Nirsa. On enquiry, it was revealed that neither there was any Dipti Travels registered with the aforesaid registration number nor at the aforesaid address nor was there any Luxury Coach Bus bearing registration No. WMH-6231. Actually it was revealed that the aforesaid registration number was of a Dumper which belongs to Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Sanctoria, Burdwan etc. The respondent No. 2 submitted his reply to the charge-sheet in which even though he stated that he or his wife had not availed the L.T.C., but it was a fact that his family members had traveled from Nirsa to Trivendrum by the aforesaid Luxury Coach belonging to the aforesaid Dipti Travels. A reading of the reply dated 19.12.1991 does suggest that respondent No. 2 actually did not contest or controvert the allegation about the non-existence of Dipti Travels or the fact that the registration number of the Luxury Coach that he had furnished actually belongs to a Dumper.

A domestic enquiry was held in which the respondent No. 2 was found guilty of the charges and consequently an order was passed on 19.6.92 whereby he was discharged from service with immediate effect.

An industrial dispute having been raised with respect to the aforesaid impugned order, the Labour Court at Dhanbad passed an award in Ref. Case No. 7/93 on 8.9.95 whereby the aforesaid discharge/termination order dated 19th June, 1991 was set aside and the respondent No. 2 directed to be reinstated in service with effect from the date of the dismissal and with full back wages and other consequential benefits. Actually before the passing of the award dated 8.9.95, an interlocutory order was passed by the Labour Court on 19.8.1994 whereby the fairness of the domestic enquiry held by the petitioner with respect to the aforesaid charge-sheet was decided against the petitioner by the Labour Court. Both the order dated 19.8.1994 and the award dated 8.9.1995 are under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The order dated 19.8.94 itself suffered from the vice of arbitrariness because the Labour Court incorrectly held the domestic enquiry to be unfair. The Enquiry Officer even though an Advocate, rightly was appointed and conducted the enquiry impartially and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. All opportunities were given to respondent No. 2 to defend himself in this enquiry. We did not find any material whereby we could come to a conclusion that the domestic enquiry was unfair.

Even if we ignore and overlook the order dated 19.8.94, what we found from a reading of the impugned award dated 8.9.95 passed by the Labour Court is that the Labour Court itself misappreciated the evidence adduced during the course of the proceedings before it. The Management of the petitioner had clearly established the falsity of the claim of the respondent No. 2 and despite that it by grossly misappreciating the evidence decided the issue in favour of respondent No. 2. This was indeed a perversity writ large on the face of the award. Actually if one looks at the reply filed by the respondent No. 2 to the chargesheet, one immediately comes to realize that this was a case of an implied admission. In any case, there being clear evidence that L.T.C. claim was false and based on fictitious facts and figures, the petitioner was justified in issuing the charge-sheet and terminating the services of the respondent No. 2. We have no hesitation also in observing and holding that the punishment of discharge from service, on the basis of the allegations forming the subject matter of the charge-sheet was commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

The writ application, accordingly, is allowed. The impugned award dated 8.9.95 passed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad, in Ref. Case No. 7/93 is set aside. The order dated 19th June, 1992 discharging respondent No. 2 from service is upheld in its entirety. No order as to costs.

Tapen Sen, J.

I agree.