Sri. H. Bhanumurthy vs Management of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ petitioner had obtained employment in the respondent-company-a Government of India Undertaking, way back in the year 1978 as Mechanic-B against a post reserved in favour of persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe community. Writ petitioner had produced a caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar concerned indicating that he belonged to Kaadu Kuruba caste which is categorized as Scheduled Tribe community.

It appears in due course, the petitioner was holding the post of Group-E. However, it later came to the knowledge of the Management that the certificate issued in favour of the writ petitioner had come to be wrongly issued by the Tahsildar and based on a misrepresentation by the petitioner etc.; that the petitioner did not belong to the Caste as certified but to a totally different caste which was not a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

In this background, the Management took action by issuing show cause notice to the writ petitioner alleging that the petitioner had secured employment by producing bogus caste certificate declaring himself as from Kaadu Kuruba community.

Writ petitioner had denied charges, inquiry was held and ultimately had resulted in the dismissal order dated 25.11.1999.

The workman being dissatisfied had sought for reference and the matter was referred to the Labour Court in Ref. No. 27/2007.

The Labour Court found that the domestic inquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and also went into the question of community to which the petitioner belonged to. On facts, the Labour Court found that the petitioner belonged to a totally different community than one claimed under the certificate which had been produced and answered that the Management was justified in concluding that the writ petitioner was guilty of misconduct of producing a false caste certificate and therefore the order of dismissal was not interfered.

Amongst the material relied upon by the petitioner before the Labour Court, one such is the Government Order dated 11.3.2002. Under this Government Order, the State Government after examining the cases of persons who have obtained employment by claiming that they belong to a particular reserved category, but later it was found that the caste does not really belong to the reserved category, had made some relaxation in favour of such persons observing that if the caste certificate had been issued earlier and had attained finality and the employment had been obtained on the basis of the caste certificate before the year 1995, then there should not be any further reopening of the matter against such employees on the basis of the caste certificate being found wanting or otherwise etc.

It is aggrieved by this, the present writ petition.

While the facts are not in dispute, the only contention sought to be urged by Sri. Mukkannappa, learned counsel for petitioner, based on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Another Vs. Vilas Bokade and Another , is that a similar notification which had been issued by the Punjab Government had come in for interpretation before the Punjab High Court wherein it was held that similarly situated employee was entitled to the benefit of the Notification issued by the State Government and therefore had set aside the order of removal of the workman and in further appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court declined to interfere in the matter and particular reliance is placed on this Judgment by pointing out that no distinction can be made.

The Supreme Court in that case opined that the Management without questioning the validity of such a resolution passed by the State Government cannot seek to distinguish on the premise that it is a Central Government Undertaking etc. and therefore it is submitted that the present writ petition also is to be allowed on same lines as the only distinction made is that the respondent-employer is a Central Government Undertaking.

On the other hand, Sri. Narasimha Swamy, learned counsel for respondent, would draw attention to Annexure-R1 filed along with the statement of objection to the writ petition which is the proceedings before the Director of Scheduled Tribe Welfare and Appellate Authority, Krishi Bhavan, II Floor, Hudson Circle, Bangalore, wherein the Appellate Board had reversed the view taken by the District Caste Verification Committee to hold that the Government Order dated 11.03.2002 cannot be made applicable to the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited-another Central Government Undertaking and for such purpose, placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Additional General Manager/Human Resource Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde, In this case, the Supreme Court found fault with the view taken by the High Court and had revered the Judgment of the High Court extending the benefit of the nature sought for by the present writ petitioner on the premise that there was considerable time gap between the date of appointment and the date of taking action of removal from service for producing false or incorrect certificate.

The Supreme Court opined that either an undertaking given by the employee that he will not claim the benefit of reserved category in the future or that it was many years after the appointment cannot be the criteria for directing reinstatement and in that view of the matter, reversed the Judgment of the High Court.

It is found in the present case, firstly, when the Labour Court found on facts, the petitioner had produced a false certificate and approved the dismissal, there was no Government Notification and it was only later that it was issued. Even otherwise, in view of the Supreme Court in the case of ''Addl. General Manager-Human Resource, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., [supra], wherein it has been clearly held that directing reinstatement by the High Court in such cases is clearly erroneous, I am of the opinion that it is not for this court to venture upon to disturb the Award of the Labour Court and direct reinstatement.

It is to be noticed that in a matter of concession, no discrimination can be pleaded as concession is not a matter of right. If the Central Government had issued a similar notification, perhaps it would have been a different position. But, it is not so. Even otherwise, I am of the view, no premium can be placed in such cases only because of lapse of time which will be not only encouraging such tendencies, but more importantly, it would amount to depriving the benefit given to a person deserving it and conferring it on a person undeserving or on a person for whom it was never meant for.

It is for this reason, I do not find any need or justification to interfere with the Award of the Labour Court. Writ petition is dismissed.