AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against award dated 07.02.1992 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), U.P. Meerut in Adjudication Case No. 175 of 1989. The matter, which was referred to the labour court, was as to whether the action of the Petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman Respondent No. 1 Dheer Singh w.e.f. 03.12.1988 was just and valid or not. The Labour Court held that termination was illegal and directed reinstatement with full back wages.
In this writ petition on 01.11.2010 when arguments were heard and judgment was reserved, two orders were passed, which are quoted below:
Supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the merit of the writ petition.
Judgment reserved. Learned Counsel for both the parties shall at once ascertain from their clients as to whether workman Respondent is working and is being paid wages or not.
After reserving the judgment in the forenoon, learned Counsel for the Petitioner employer intimated the court in the afternoon that workman-Respondent had been taken back in service, was paid regular wages and has now retired. Accordingly, now the only question of back wages survives regarding which the judgment is to be given.
In this writ petition on 18.05.1992, an interim order was passed staying the back wages on the condition that future wages were paid. In view of this the workman was reinstated.
In case the writ petition had been heard before the retirement of the workman, the position would have been different.
The allegation against the Petitioner was that he had stolen 19 kg. brass on 20.10.1986. FIR was also lodged against the Petitioner and he remained in jail for 15 days. Domestic enquiry was held against the Petitioner in which he admitted his guilt. The issue as to whether domestic enquiry was fair or not was decided as preliminary issue by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court on 13.08.1991. In the said order it was held that the domestic inquiry was fair. Entire order of 13.08.1991 is quoted in the impugned award. In spite of this the Labour Court in the impugned award held that charge was not proved. It is mentioned in the award that the report of the Inquiry Officer was based on evidence, however no reasons were given therein.
The court is finding some difficulty in appreciating this hair-splitting. When it had been found that inquiry report was based on evidence, what other reason according to the labour court ought to have been given by the Inquiry Officer has not been indicated in the impugned award. When the workman had admitted the guilt (theft) of 19 kg. brass no other view was possible. The Labour Court in spite of admission of the workman, report of Inquiry officer and its earlier finding that domestic enquiry was completely fair held that firstly the workman had not committed any fault and secondly even if the allegation was proved still removal from service was too harsh punishment.
The Court is rather shocked at the reasoning given by the Labour Court for setting aside the termination order. Supreme Court in Employers Management West Bokaro Colliery of TISCO Ltd. Vs. Concerned Workman, Ram Pravesh Singh, has held that the Labour Court is not authorised to examine the finding of Inquiry Officer as a court of appeal. If a person is caught with stolen material of the employer, no other punishment except that of removal may be granted. In any case the Labour Court did not even award some minor punishment.
In view of the fact that legally finding of reinstatement was/ is erroneous, there is no question of maintaining that part of the impugned award through which back wages have been awarded.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned award is set aside. However as Petitioner was taken back in service and has now retired, hence any wages already paid to the Petitioner shall not be refundable by him.