U.P.S.R.T.C. vs Mohd. Ahmad and Others

Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—Heard Sri Rahul Anand Gaur, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri S.N. Dubey for Respondents-workman.

By this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the award of Labour Court dated 9.8.2001 published on 9.11.2001 on the Notice Board of Labour Court No. 4, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 66 of 2000. The Labour Court has held that baring one charge that workman had left workshop for visiting Hamirpur without any prior written permission of the head office and had no justification for doing so, the management has failed to establish the other charges of misconduct levelled against the workman. The inquiry officer did not bas his finding on evidence on record, rather based his finding by believing the testimony of superior officer without examining the material witnesses named in the charge-sheet and without any explanation as to why the material witnesses could not be produced either before the inquiry officer or before the Labour Court itself. The disciplinary inquiry was conducted within one day and no opportunity of hearing in consonance with the principles of natural justice was afforded to the workman. Accordingly the order of dismissal of Respondent-workman has been set aside with, direction for reinstatement of the workman in service with continuity of service and with full back wages with liberty to the employer to stop one Annual increment of the workman in future.

The facts leading to the case are that an industrial dispute u/s 4-K was referred before the Labour Court to the effect that as to whether the termination of service of workman Mohd Ahmad from the post of Cleaner vide order dated 30.9.1997 was illegal and unjustified? If so, for what relief the workman is entitled? Before the Labour Court workman has come forward with the case that he was appointed on the post of Cleaner in the workshop of U.P.S.R.T.C. and vide order dated 5.2.1996 he was transfered from District Hamirpur to Banda Depo. On 3.11.1996 there was Sunday Holiday. For payment of salary of October month, at oral direction of Pay Clerk, the Petitioner had visited District Hamirpur for seeking the attendance report for the month of October so that his salary bill of the said month may be prepared, as such he contacted Senior foreman, Hamirpur and requested him for sending report of his attendance for month of October but instead of acceding to his request he had made a false report against the workman to the manager and also lodged First Information Report in Kotwali against him. Thereafter, on 14.11.1996, the workman was suspended and on 29.1.1997 a charge-sheet was issued to him, thereupon he submitted his explanation, as a result of which his suspension was revoked and he was deputed on duty in Banda Depo in the month of February, 1997. Thereafter Assistant Regional Manager held domestic inquiry against the workman in which he was given no opportunity to inspect the record nor permitted to cross-examine the witness, if any, despite thereof Inquiry Officer had held him guilty of the charges and ultimately on that basis he was dismissed from service on 30.9.1997.

In the written statement filed on behalf of management before the Labour Court it was stated that on 3.11.1996 the workman had left the workshop to meet Senior Foreman without any information and while such meeting he had not merely abused Senior Foreman Sri R.D. Rawat but he had also physically assaulted him. The workman had done so due to the reason that Senior Foreman had refused to give forged attendance report in favour of workman. After said incident other employees had admitted Sri Rawat in the District Hospital, Hamirpur and also lodged F.I.R. against the workman in Kotwali. It was also stated that the workman was habit of absenting from duty without information and dereliction of duty inasmuch as had impertinent behaviour with superior officers. It is also stated that the workman was found guilty in disciplinary inquiry, accordingly appropriate punishment of dismissal from service was awarded to him.

At this juncture it would be useful to extract the relevant discussion and observation made by the Labour Court from para-8 to para -10 of the award as under:

On behalf of employer learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that in given facts and circumstances of the case the Labour Court was not justified in substituting its subjective opinion in place of one arrived at by the inquiry officer and the punishment awarded to the workman as the facts and circumstances of the case warranted the punishment of dismissal of workman from service. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon a decision of Hon''ble Apex Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma 2005 SCC. 417, wherein punishment of dismissal for physical assault of superior officer was found appropriate punishment by the Apex Court. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also placed reliance upon another decision of Apex Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. AT. Mane 2005 SCC 407, in para 9 of which the Apex Court observed that once a domestic tribunal, based on evidence, comes to a particular conclusion, normally it is not open to the appellate tribunal and Courts to substitute their subjective opinion in place of one arrived at by the domestic tribunal.

From perusal of record it appears that the facts of the aforesaid cases are quite distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. It is not a case where the findings of inquiry officer in domestic inquiry were based on material evidence on record and Labour Court has substituted its subjective opinion in place of one arrived at by the inquiry officer in domestic inquiry and the quantum of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority, instead thereof the Labour Court has clearly held that the Inquiry officer had conducted the entire inquiry within one day and management did neither examine material witnesses before the inquiry officer to establish the charges againsit the workman nor before the Labour Court itself nor the management has given any explanation before the Labour Court as to why Sri Paltoo Ram, Junior Foreman and Sri Kamar Ali, Fitter could not be examined by the management in support of the charge of alleged assault of senior foreman by the workman, thus the Labour Court has doubted and rejected the story of physical assault of Senior Foreman by workman causing injuries to him with detail reasons given in the award.

Virtually the Labour Court has discarded the findings of Inquiry Officer on the ground that the findings were not based on any material evidence on record, instead thereof the findings were recorded by believing the testimony of Senior Foreman on account of fact he held superior post. It has also been held by the Labour Court that the other charges that the workman was habit of, absenting from duty, dereliction of duty and impertinent with superior officer, have also not been proved against him by placing any instance in this regard. The Labour Court has also recorded the finding that service record of workman is not stigmatic as there is no material on record on the basis of which it can be held that his service was stigmatic. However, the Labour Court has held that the workman is guilty of merely contacting the Senior Foreman for his attendance report without any written permission from head office for which he could write to the responsible officer, therefore, to that extent, the aforesaid charge was found proved against the workman. Accordingly, in given facts and circumstances of the case, Labour Court has held that the punishment of dismissal is arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of charge found proved against the workman, and directed the reinstatement of workman with continuity in service and with full back wages by permitting the management to stop one Annual increment of the workman with prospective effect in future.

Thus, in my opinion, it is not a case where it can be held that Labour Court has merely substituted its subjective opinion in place of one arrived at by inquiry officer on the basis of relevant material on record in domestic inquiry and quantum of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. It is a clear case where Labour Court has found that the domestic inquiry was bad for non-compliance of principles of natural justice inasmuch as on merit also the charges were not proved and findings of inquiry officer were not based on relevant materials. Therefore, in my view the decisions cited by learned Counsel for the Petitioner on behalf of employer are quite distinguishable on facts and can be of no assistance to the case of Petitioner.

Contrary to it, learned Counsel appearing for workman has placed reliance upon a decision rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Others, wherein two important witnesses were not examined to prove the state or condition of the Appellant therein. The Hon''ble Apex Court has set aside the order of dismissal of the Appellant with direction to reinstate him in service. The aforesaid decision of Apex Court, in my opinion lends support to the case of workman and view taken by the Labour Court. The award made by Labour Court cannot be faulted with for the reason that if is based on material available on record and cannot be held to be perverse or based on no evidence. Accordingly, no interference is called for.

The writ petition stands dismissed.