Heard learned advocates for the parties. 1. The petitioner, first party employer in Reference (LCV) No.912 of 2000 from the Court of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vadodara, has approached this Court under Article 226 and also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 18/6/2007 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCV) No. 912 of 2000, where under while partly allowing the reference the Court has ordered reinstatement of the workman with 20% backwages and Rs.1000/- cost within 30 days from the date of publication of the award.
2. The facts in brief leading to filing this petition as could be culled out from the pleadings and proceedings deserve to be set out as under.
The workman – respondent herein No.1 was constrained to raise industrial dispute on account of his dismissal vide order dated 12/9/1998 pursuant to the charge sheet dated 29/12/1997 in respect of this involvement in criminal activities for which investigation was going on and the criminal cases were lodged indicating his involvement in serious offence under Indian Penal Code. The inquiry concluded against respondent workman and the workman was given second showcause notice. The punishment of dismissal was imposed which was subject matter of dispute. The dispute was referred to the competent Court by the competent authority wherein it was marked as Reference (LCV) No.912 of 2000.The workman filed his statement of claim detailing there under the chargesheet, allegations in the chargesheet and non tenability of inquiry proceedings, and prayed for his relief of reinstatement with full backwages and consequential benefits. The employer filed its written statement inter alia contending that the instances narrated in the chargesheet were serious enough to warrant one and the only punishment that of dismissal, as the workman had committed serious misconduct as prescribed under the Standing Order and thus he his not entitled to receive any relief from the Court in any manner.
3. Consequence of serious punishment could not have been over looked by the inquiry officer and when inquiry officer concluded by recording findings against the delinquent workman the court may not interfere with the same. During the course of hearing before the Labour Court a purshish came to be passed on behalf of the workman which was recorded by the Court on 27/6/2006 being exhibit-20. That the chargesheet dated 29/12/1997 was pertaining to incident of loot which occurred outside the company premises on 2/8/1997, was belatedly issued. The conducting of inquiry is not disputed, but imposition of punishment is challenged and as criminal case has been resulted into acquittal of the workman, the inquiry officer's report is challenged and consequent imposition of punishment be quashed and set aside. The Labour Court after recording findings held that the punishment imposed was not commensurate with the misconduct alleged and hence while partly allowing reference directed the employer to reinstate the workman with 20% backwages and continuity of service and amount of Rs.1000/- towards cost. This award dated 18/6/1997 is assailed in this petition under Article 226 and also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the chargesheet contain allegations against the workman, if proved in the criminal court, then the workman would have been required to undergo serious punishment as the charges of committing loot, robbery etc. were imputed for which the criminal cases were filed. Learned advocate for the petitioner read the entire chargesheet in order to highlight the seriousness of the charges faced by the delinquent in a criminal case and on that basis learned advocate for the petitioner attempted to justify the order of punishment of dismissal.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that exhibit-20 purshish recorded on 27/6/2006 before the Labour Court was passed over by the workman invoking section 11A of the I.D. Act, disentitle the workman from turning around and contesting the finding and initiation of inquiry. The turn over of purshish unequivocally indicate that the workman not only accepted the inquiry but even accepted findings recorded by the inquiry officer also. However investigating officer has recorded findings indicating involvement of the workman in the incidences alleged and that the workman's mere acquittal on account of benefit of doubt in a criminal case should not have been construed a honorary acquittal so as to restore the original position of the workman in the premises of the factory. The workman's involvement in a criminal case that too his involvement in 2 to 3 cases for a serious crime would have otherwise also been sufficient for the workman to be visited with penalty of dismissal. The order of dismissal therefore did not warrant any interference by a Labour Court and Labour Court's exercising its power under section 11A was wholly unjustified.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the Model Standing Order application in the present case, to be more precise Model Standing Order No. 24 (l) would clearly indicate that the misconduct alleged in the charge & chargesheet could not have been considered as a misconduct outside premises of the factory so as to debar the employer from conducting any disciplinary proceedings. The premises mentioned in Model Standing Order No. 24(l) would not be required to be construed in its narrow sense for its lateral sense, and for this learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd And Others Vs. T.K. Raju, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 143, and in case of Mulchandani Electrical and Radio Industries Ltd.,Vs. The Workmen, reported in AIR 1975, S.C. 2125. The observations made by the Apex Court in para no. 10 to 18 of (2006) 3 SCC 143 were heavily relied upon to justify the contention that the definition of premises carrying in Model Standing Order No. 24 (l) cannot be so construed as to take out the incident of such nature outside the purview of Labour Court proceedings. Hence the ratio of Apex Court in case of Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd And Others Vs. T.K. Raju, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 143, and in case of Mulchandani Electrical and Radio Industries Ltd.,Vs. The Workmen, reported in AIR 1975, S.C. 2125 (supra) would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the misconduct in which the workman is said to have been involved for which workman was subject to full-fledged criminal trial cannot be said to be committed outside the factory premises in light of the definition understood by the Apex Court, as the conduct of the workman did affect the functioning of the fellow workmen in the premises, it brought about bad name and bad repute to the petitioner, therefore, collectively considering all these would show that 24 (l) of Model Standing Order on definition of 'premises' cannot be construed so narrowly as to take away right of the company to hold inquiry on the misconduct alleged in the chargesheet. Learned advocate relying upon the observations of the Apex Court in case of Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd And Others Vs. T.K. Raju, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 143 (supra), further submitted that the decision rendered by the Apex Court in said judgment is clearly distinct and submitted that the straight jacket formula is not prescribed even in Glaxo Laboratories India Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut, reported in 1983 (O) GLHEL-SC 9567 = AIR 1984 SC 505.
7. Learned advocate for the petitioner relying upon the decision in case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar, reported in (2008) 1 SCC, 115, submitted that in a given case when conductor was found to be involved in misappropriation and or non-issuing tickets, and or on miscount alleged, held that the penalty of punishment of dismissal was not required to be interfered with. This was based upon the observation made by the Apex Court in para-10 wherein it was contended that respondent workman had not challenged correctness or legality of the inquiry and it was not open to the Labour Court to interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer regarding misconduct of the respondent. In the instant case, as it is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the purshish recorded dated 27/6/2006 unequivocally in terms indicate that the workman has even accepted the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and whereof the Labour Court could not have been left with any other alternative but to merely examine the proposition of penalty. In the instant case as the allegations and report of the inquiry officer amply justify the order of punishment of dismissal, same ought not to have been interfered with by the Labour Court in its exercise of discretion under section 11-A of the I.D. Act.
8. Learned advocate for the petitioner thereafter contended that the Labour Court has in fact not adverted to correct facts and the judgment is based upon the decision of the criminal court which was not in fact subject matter of consideration, as the incident involved was subject matter of another criminal proceedings which though culminated into acquittal of respondent workman, said decision was not even brought before the notice of the court nor was the same pleaded in any manner for justifying the submission on the part of the workman. The Labour Court has taken into consideration wholly irrelevant decision of the Apex Court in which also the workman was acquitted. In fact the criminal case which was subject matter of inquiry and the incident where from the inquiry arose was different than the criminal case wherein acquittal was recorded and which was relied upon by the workman was different. The sheer non application of mind on the part of the Labour Court should vitiate the entire findings and resultant award and therefore on this count also the decision of the Labour Court impugned in this petition is required to be quashed and set aside. The judgment in which the incident is recorded and which was made basis for holding disciplinary proceedings is the criminal case, judgment wherein was for the first time placed before the Court only by way of affidavit in this present petition as could be seen from averment in page-103 by the workman. Thus, it is clearly an admitted position that the workman produced a judgment which was not relevant at all for the consideration of Labour Court and acting upon that judgment held that workman was acquitted and hence penalty of dismissal was wholly disproportionate. This being patent non application of mind the same cannot be countenanced by this Court in any manner. The Court may therefore quash and set aside the order impugned.
9. Learned advocate for the petitioner thereafter relied upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, reported in 2011- III CLR 1075, and contended that the standards to be applied in the criminal case are admittedly different than the standards to be applied in a disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, acquittal of the workman in the criminal proceeding would not ipso facto be of any avail to the workman for contending that the disciplinary proceedings and findings recorded there under are also required to be held untenable. In fact the Apex Court has acknowledged that the disciplinary proceedings on the conduct which is also subject of criminal proceedings could be proceeded with and the employer if he is establishing loss of confidence, then even if the acquittal order is recorded in the criminal proceedings, workman cannot be reinstated, as admittedly standard of evidence and proving in both the proceedings are different than one another.
10. Learned advocate for the petitioner thereafter relying upon the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in case of M.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2011- I-LLJ-325(Del), contended that charges in criminal case were not grounded on identical facts, the acquittal of employee in a criminal case shall be having no effect upon the punishment in disciplinary proceedings. Moreover the Division Bench of Delhi High Court has held that acquittal based on account of 'benefit of doubt' and acquittal which is 'honorary acquittal' will have to be viewed in its proper perspective. In the instant case the acquittal of the workman is not honorary acquittal but the workman is given mere benefit of doubt which shall not be held to be honorary acquittal so as to wipe off all the allegations in the inquiry against the workman.
11. Learned advocate for the petitioner in the alternative submitted that the allegation made against the workman as could be seen from the chargesheet would persuade initially the court to hold that charges were serious and involvement was clear. The criminal court has acquitted the workman on account of benefit of doubt, but when the workman's employment order contains a condition that on receipt of any adverse opinion either from the police or from other quarter the workman's services were to be terminated. That clause can be fruitfully relied upon by the employer in subsequent inquiry and the order of punishment deserve to be upheld also on this ground, as otherwise absolutely undesirable person who has brought about disrepute to the name of the company would be walking in the employment of petitioner company which will have adverse impact upon the fellow workmen in the company.
12. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner extending the aforesaid submissions, alternatively submitted that in case if the Court is not inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner for accepting the petition in its totality, then, atleast the order of reinstatement may be quashed and set aside and instead of reinstatement the workman be ordered to be compensated in terms of money in lieu of reinstatement, as in all cases reinstatement is not the only relief which could have been granted. Relying on the decision of J.K. Synthetics Ltd Vs.K.P.Agrawal And Another, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 433, learned counsel contended that in a given case of such nature the order of reinstatement would not be justified and the Court may substitute the order of reinstatement with that of adequate monetary compensation, atleast that would save the petitioner company from its obligation to employee's reinstatement which would surely have no effect upon the working condition.
13. Learned advocate for the respondent workman relying upon decision in case of M/s Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and others, AIR 1984 505 (supra) as well as the decision of the Apex Court in case of Mavji C. Lakum Vs. Central Bank of India, reported in 2008 (12) SCC, 726, contended that the order impugned does not call for any interference under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the Industrial Tribunal has passed order bearing in mind the facts & circumstances of the case. The Industrial Tribunal's decision referring to the order of the Sessions Court which is not subject matter, out of which disciplinary proceedings had arisen would also not render the decision incorrect only on that ground as the statement of claim, written statement and purshish of the workman if perused closely would clearly show that the workman's basic challenge to the order of punishment was based upon the lack of jurisdiction in the inquiry officer or competence of the employer to conduct inquiry and as such when before this Court also the petitioner has not established as to how the charges have been proved and lack of jurisdiction in the inquiry officer to conduct the inquiry, the order of the Labour Court may not be interfered with in the interest of justice.
14. Learned advocate for the respondent workman contended that Labour Court's exercising jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, is otherwise also very rarely interfered with by this Court, and in the instant case when it is established beyond doubt that the chargesheet itself was wholly unwarranted, this Court may not interfere with the same even if part of the court decision is based upon material which cannot be said to be forming part of valid defence.
15. Learned advocate for the respondent workman further contended that the workman is required to be reinstated as his termination/ dismissal by way of punishment was based upon incompetent charges and allegation thereupon being wholly illegal, question of compensation would be in no way redress the grievance of the workman, rather it amount to giving premium to the employer who has shown no regards to rule of law.
16. Learned advocate for the respondent workman further submitted that the employer had no authority to arrogate to test & decide the criminal jurisprudence and substitute to its own judgment in place of the competent criminal court judgment for punishing the workman. If such an employer is permitted to go with impunity and the order of reinstatement is substituted with that of compensation, then, it would send wrong signals to all the concerned. Therefore also this Court may not interfere with the order in judgment impugned in this petition.
17. Against the aforesaid rival contentions of the rival parties, this Court is to examine the order impugned in this petition. Learned advocate for the petitioner is not incorrect in submitting that the order of acquittal placed before the Court was not the order where from the disciplinary proceedings was conducted. Rather production of that order indicate that the workman was facing one such criminal case which was not in the knowledge of the employer. The two alleged involvements of respondent workman were sought to be relied upon for initiating disciplinary proceedings but the competent court in criminal cases was in favour of the workman. Admittedly that judgment was not placed on the record and to that extent it can well be said that the Labour Court had taken that material into consideration which was not in fact relevant. However the question remains to be noted that the production of acquittal order in case of other criminal case would not affect the decision of the court, as the factum of acquittal is noted and it is not the case of the employer even today also that the instances which were subject matter of inquiry were in fact subject matter of full-fledged trial by the criminal court, wherein order of acquittal was recorded. Thus factum of acquittal has not been disputed at all, rather it is sought to be argued that the acquittal being 'not honorary acquittal' and acquittal being based upon 'benefit of doubt', same should not have been of no avail to the respondent workman. The Court is unable to agree with such a submission canvased on behalf of the employer. At this stage learned advocate for the petitioner clarified that the respondent workman's contention is that out of the two instances, in one incident he never received summons, meaning thereby that incident did not culminate into criminal trial and in the incident which culminated into criminal trial, the workman was acquitted. This clarification rather helps the workman in contending that out of two instances relied upon by the employer for conducting inquiry one instance was never subject matter of even criminal trial.
18. The Court is unable to agree with the contention raised by learned advocate for the petitioner that the chargesheet was competently issued. In fact the admitted position is that the employer company is governed by Model Standing Order and Model Standing Order which is said to be relevant and available to employer and for issuing chargesheet is the Model Standing Order no. 24(l), which is reproduced s under.
“24 (l). Commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behavior on the premises of the establishment”.
19. Thus the aforesaid Model Standing Order clearly prescribes the happening of incident on the premises of the factory. The decisions cited at the Bar in order to enlarge the scope of 'premise' on account of causal link as could be seen from the decision of Apex Court in case of Mulchandani Electrical and Radio Industries Ltd Vs. The Workmen, reported in AIR 1975 SC 2125 and in case of Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd & Others Vs. T.K. Raju, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 143 (supra), would be of no avail to the petitioner, as the facts of the present case clearly indicate that the employer company was no where concerned with the incident of alleged offence attributed to the workman, as it was never a subject matter of any complaint by the fellow employee or the workman. The tenure of the chargesheet would indicate that the chargesheet is laid as if an investigating officer's finding under the Criminal Procedure Code was laying charges, wherein the company or the fellow workmen or the incident alleged was not shown to be in any manner affecting the function of the company and or the fellow workmen and or the employee or the staff members. The incident of so called loot or loot of bus is purely in the nature of criminal proceedings in the realm of competent investigating authority and the competent court could not have been subject matter of inquiry by the company when the company was in no way in the picture, nor was any company's employees were harmed or hampered on account of commission of such act which is alleged to have been committed by respondent workman. Had there been any complaint qua the effect of such incident to the fellow workman, then also, there could have been some possibility of remote causal action in order to provide linkage as held by the Apex Court, as in that case the demonstration of threat by workman to fellow workmen had taken place on the premises of the factory and threat was carried out in the past. Otherwise, in such circumstances on account of causal link Apex Court held 'premises' definition as understood in a simple parlance cannot be restricted and causal link becomes clearer as it is a fact of discipline upon the factory premises. In the instance case the chargesheet does not indicate anywhere as to how and in what manner the allegation of incident of crime is affecting the company and or its employees and the staff members. The submission of petitioner's advocate that company's reputation is tarnished on account of its employee's involvement in crime, is to say the least a far fetched submission does not deserve delving upon elaborately here. The submission of such nature if permitted to be canvassed then mere involvement or even false involvement of workman will be utilized as handi tool for dispensing with services of said workman. The Court hasten to add here that, had there been any misconduct covered under the Standing Order or under Certified Standing Order rendering workman liable to be proceeded against in case of mere involvement in criminal proceeding, then the entire complex would have changed. Naturally mere involvement even if a government servant in criminal offence would not ipso facto entail in his termination. Whereas in the instant case it is the case of the workman whose services are governed by Model Standing Order and the principle of Industrial Disputes Act 1947, does not prescribe such incident to be a misconduct, then, in my view, if the inquiry proceedings were themselves not justified in any manner and there was no requirement of issuance of chargesheet against petitioner. The reliance placed upon the observation of the Apex Court in M/s. Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd., Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and others (supra) on behalf of workman would be amply & effectively applicable in favour of workman as admittedly in the instant case, first of all the incident which is alleged cannot be said to be an incident amounting to misconduct, nor was the same committed in any manner affecting the company even remotely. Therefore the petition being bereft of merits deserve rejection and is accordingly rejected. Rule discharged. Interim relief if any granted earlier shall stand vacated. However, in the peculiar facts & circumstance of the case there shall be no order as to cost.
[ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn