Punjabi University vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court

N.K. Sodhi, J.—Surinder Singh Gurney, the workman was employed as a Clerk - cum-typist by the Punjabi University, Patiala (for short, the University) on April 10, 1970 and was promoted as Assistant on January 31, 1985. He had worked earlier as a Peon and a Laboratory Attendant. It is alleged that he attempted to molest a 14 years old girl who is the daughter of a colleague of his. On a complaint made by the father of the girl, a preliminary inquiry was held in which the allegations were found to be correct and the workman was placed under suspension. It is further alleged that in accordance with the Statutory Regulations of the University, the workman was charge-sheeted. A regular departmental inquiry is said to have been conducted. The Inquiry officer after recording the statements of the witnesses produced before him, is stated to have submitted his report on the basis of which the workman was removed from service. He challenged his removal by raising an industrial dispute which was referred on March 30, 1988 to the Labour Court, Patiala for adjudication u/s 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). In his statement of claim filed on April 9, 1988, the workman alleged that his services had been wrongfully terminated on February 27, 1986 without any notice, charge sheet and inquiry and that his juniors were still in service. He claimed reinstatement with continuity of service. When the industrial dispute was still pending, the workman challenged the order of his removal from service by filing a suit for declaration in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Patiala. This suit was filed on November 6, 1989. It was pleaded that a false charge sheet was served on him while he was working as an Assistant in the Construction Department of the University and that he denied the charges. Paragraphs 6 to 12 of the plaint Exhibit M-1 on the record of the Labour Court read as under :

"6. That the plaintiff was charge-sheeted on false, fake, wrong and concocted allegations by the Registrar of the defendant/University vide Office Letter No. 26837 Estt. A/-6 dated October 1, 1985, when the plaintiff was serving as Assistant in Construction Department of the defendant/University at Patiala.

That the plaintiff replied to the charge-sheet in time denying all the alleged charges and pleaded not guilty of the alleged charges the same being absolutely false and unfounded.

That therefore, an enquiry was instituted against the plaintiff to enquire into the charge mentioned in the Charge-Sheet, Prof. Ajit Singh was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations.

That after completion of fake and eye-wash enquiry, the plaintiff was served with a "Show-Cause Notice" vide Office Order No. 2233/ Estt.1/A-6 dated February 7, 1986 in which the Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala had given his own opinion of punishment of "removal from service" of the plaintiff. This Show Cause Notice was also carrying one enquiry report.

That the plaintiff submitted the detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice well in time.

That the disciplinary authority, without going through the contents of the reply to the Show Cause Notice and that to the Charge-Sheet including all other relevant factors and without applying his own open and judicious mind passed the Office Order No. 3668/Estt./A-.6 dated March 27, 1986 in which the penalty of "removal from service" was inflicted upon the plaintiff.

That the plaintiff requested/advised the defendant''s Vice Chancellor through notice dated March 18, 1986, copy whereof is appended herewith, for his re-instatement with all rights, benefit and privileges etc. from the date of removal from his service. The Deputy Registrar (Estt.) Punjabi University, Patiala sent an evasive reply to this notice vide his letter No. 6201/L.A. dated April 3, 1986 rejecting the claim of the plaintiff"

On July 30, 1992 counsel for the plaintiff withdrew the suit with liberty to pursue the reference which was pending before the Labour Court.

On receipt of notice from the Labour Court, the University filed its written statement alleging that the workman had been removed from service on account of misconduct after a regular departmental inquiry in which the charges levelled against him stood proved. The University produced Raj Kumar MW-1 who deposed that the workman teased the minor girl and tried to molest her upon which he was charge-sheeted and a domestic inquiry conducted against him. He further stated that the charges stood proved against the workman in the domestic inquiry and, therefore, his services were terminated. He also produced on record Exhibit -- M- 1 a copy of the plaint filed by the workman. In rebuttal, the workman appeared as his own witness and stated that his services were terminated without any notice, charge-sheet, inquiry or payment of compensation. He admitted that he filed a civil suit which was withdrawn by him in order to pursue the reference before the Labour Court. Since the University neither produced the Inquiry Officer nor the inquiry proceedings before the Labour Court, the latter accepted the statement of the workman and took the view that no inquiry was conducted against the workman and the termination order was, therefore, neither justified nor in order. The workman was consequently directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. It is this award that has been challenged in the present petition filed by the university under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Having heard counsel for the parties at length, I am of the opinion that the impugned award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained. The stand taken by the workman before the Labour Court is that his services were terminated without any notice, charge-sheet or inquiry nor was he paid any compensation. According to the workman, his termination was invalid. The University, on the other hand, specifically pleaded that the workman was found guilty of charges levelled against him in a departmental inquiry and that his services were terminated on account of his proved misconduct. In the plaint the workman had clearly admitted that he was charge-sheeted and that an inquiry was held against him. His stand before the Labour Court that no inquiry was held against him is obviously false. It is true that the University did not produce the inquiry file before the Labour Court but that would have been necessary if the workman had challenged the validity of the inquiry held against him. The admission of the workman in his plaint Exhibit M-1 that an inquiry was held against him has not been taken note of by the Labour Court and its finding that no inquiry was held arrived at on account of the non- production of the inquiry file or the Inquiry Officer cannot be sustained. I am, therefore, of the view that an inquiry was held against the workman and thereafter services were terminated on account of misconduct. The termination cannot in these circumstances be held to be illegal or unjustified. It is not the case of the workman that the Inquiry held against him was in any way illegal or it violated the principles of natural justice. It is one thing to say that no inquiry was held and altogether a different thing to say that the Inquiry held was not fair and proper. It is well settled that where an employee takes the stand that his removal from service had been without any inquiry, he cannot be allowed to contend later on that the inquiry conducted against him was not according to law or that he had not been given an adequate opportunity to defend himself. The view that I have taken finds support from The Provincial Transport Service Vs. State Industrial Court, and Factory Manager, Model Mills, Nagpur Ltd. Vs. State Industrial Court, Nagpur and Others, . The services of the workman having been terminated after a departmental inquiry, the validity of which has not been challenged by him, the order of removal from service has to be upheld.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award of the Labour Court set aside and the reference decided in favour of the University and against the workman. There is no order as to costs.

5.Before parting, it will be pertinent to mention that the definition of ''industry'' as given in Section 2(j) of the Act was amended by Parliament as back as in the year 1982 by Act 6 of 1982 whereby educational institutions like the University were excluded from the concept of ''industry'' for the purposes of the Act. The Central Government has not so far though more than 13 years have passed by, enforced Section 2(c) of the Amending Act (46 of 1982) so as to make the amended definition operative and enforceable. It is, in my opinion, a fit case where a notice be issued to the Union of India through Secretary, Labour Department to show cause why a writ of mandamus be not issued directing the Central Government to enforce the will of the elected representatives of the people by notifying the date of enforcement of Section 2(c) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 (46 of 1982). I order accordingly. The notice be served on the Union of India for October 19, 1995 through its Senior Standing Counsel Mr. J.S. Rathee.

To come up on October 19, 1995.