Sultan Singh vs M/s. Sadhu Forging Pvt. Ltd. and Another

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—The workman has filed the instant writ petition praying for quashing of the Award dated 28.8.1997 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Labour Court, Faridabad, whereby the reference made by the Government with regard to industrial dispute raised by the petitioner was answered against him. The workman has also challenged the order dated 7.2.1997 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Labour Court, whereby the preliminary issue raised by the workman to the effect that the enquiry conducted by the management was not fair and proper, was decided against him. After recording the finding on issue No. 2 and finding the domestic enquiry conducted by the management to be fair and proper, on the basis of which the termination order against the petitioner was passed, the Labour Court considered the third issue as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the termination of services of the petitioner was in proportionate to the charges proved against him. The said issue was decided against the workman. While taking into consideration the misconduct, which stood proved in the domestic enquiry, and the conduct of the workman during the enquiry, it was held that the punishment of dismissal of the workman from the services was proportionate to the charges of misconduct levelled and proved against him. After deciding the aforesaid issues against the workman, the reference sought by the petitioner with regard to termination of his services was answered against him. Hence this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order dated 7.2.1997 passed by the Labour Court, argued that the enquiry conducted by the management was not fair and proper, and the contrary finding recorded by the Labour Court in this regard is not sustainable. Learned counsel reiterated all the four contentions raised by the petitioner in this regard before the Labour Court, i.e., (i) during the enquiry the suspension allowance was not paid to him, therefore, the enquiry stand vitiated; (ii) that the Enquiry Officer was having close nexus with the management, therefore, the enquiry was vitiated; (iii) that certain documents were not supplied to the workman during the course of enquiry; and (iv) the enquiry was conducted in the presence of some persons from the management, therefore, the same was not proper.

I have gone through the impugned orders and all the aforesaid four contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Labour Court after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, has recorded a finding of fact against the petitioner. In my opinion, this finding of fact, which is based upon appreciation of evidence, does not require any interference in the writ jurisdiction. At one stage, learned counsel tried to attack on the finding of fact while referring to certain evidence and its appreciation. The Court is not inclined to record a contrary finding as the Labour Court, after due appreciation, recorded the finding which is in conformity with the evidence. It is not the case of the workman that the finding has been recorded without any evidence. Therefore, in my opinion, the Labour Court has rightly decided the preliminary issue that in this case fair and proper enquiry was conducted by the Management.

As far as second prayer with regard to proportion of the punishment awarded to the workman is concerned, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that the punishment awarded to the workman was disproportionate to the charges of misconduct which have been proved by the management. Even at one stage the management had offered a considerable amount to the workman as a gesture so that the matter can be amicably settled, but the workman refused to accept the said offer. In these circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court. Dismissed.