2. 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 base 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.
3. The facts leading to the case are that an industrial dispute under Section 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.
4. 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.
5. 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: -
8& eSus i{kksa ds dFku] izR;qRrj] nkf[ky fd;s x;s vfHkys[kksa ,oa ekSf[kd lk{; ij fof/kor fopkj fd;k gSA fnukWd 3&11&96 ds izdj.k ds vk/kkj ij oknh dks lhfu;j QksjeSu Jh vkj0Mh0jkor dh fjiksVZ ds vk/kj ij izn'kZ [email protected] vkjksi i= fnukWd 29&1&97 ds }kjk fcuk lwpuk vuqifLFkr jgus] mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa ds lkFk vHknzrk dk O;ogkj djus] mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns'kksa dh vogsyuk djus ,oa 3&11&96 dks lhfu;j QksjeSu ls ekjihV djus ds xEHkhj vkjksiksa ds fy;s vkjksfir fd;k x;k A izdj.k ij dh xbZ tkWp fjiksVZ izn'kZ [email protected] gSA izn'kZ [email protected] fn0 19&8&96 dh xbZ tkWp dh dk;Zokgh dk fooj.k gS ftlesa lhfu;j QksjeSu us fnukWd 3&11&96 dh ?kVuk ds laca/k esa Lo;a }kjk dh xbZ fjiksVZ dh iqf"V dh rFkk mls gh viuk c;ku ekukA oknh us Lo;a ds lk{; esa ek= gkftjh ekWxs tkus dh ckr dgh rFkk ekjihV dh ?kVuk ls bUdkj fd;k A tkWp vf/kdkjh }kjk ftjg fd;s tkus ij oknh us dgk fd fuyEcu dky esa mifLFkfr iaftdk ds vuqlkj og izfrfnu mifLFkr jgkA 9& lhfu;j QksjeSu us tkWp vf/kdkjh }kjk ftjg fd;s tkus ij dgk fd oknh Jfed us u dsoy mifLFkfr u fn;s tkus ij mls s/kedh nh cfYd ekj&ihV Hkh dh ftldh otg ls og Jh iyVw jke twfu;j QksjeSu rFkk vlxj vyh fQVj us mls vLirky ys tk dj bykt djk;kA mijksDr fooj.k ls Li"V gS fd tkWp dh dk;Zokgh cMs gh ljljs kWlh dks i= fy[kk ldrk Fkk ij blds foijhr oknh us vHknzrk djus ds fy;s muls gktjh ekWxhA mUgksaus ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 dks Hkh >wBk ugh ekuk D;ksafd fjiksVZ esa u dsoy pksVks dk mYys[k gS cfYd izR;{kn'khZ xokgksa ds uke Hkh fn;s gSA eSa muds }kjk fudkys x;s fu"d"kZ ls iw.kZr;k lger ugh gwWA ekj&ihV dh ?kVuk ds le; twfu;j QksjeSu Jh iyVwjke twfu;j QksjeSu rFkk Jh dejs vyh fQVj ds mifLFkfr gksus dk mYys[k fjiksVZ drkZ us fd;k gS fdUrq vius dFku dh iqf"V esa mls tkWp esa cqyk;s tkus dh mUgksaus u rks dksbZ is'kd'k dh vkSj u lsok;kstd }kjk gh mUgsa Lora= xokg ds :i esa U;k;ky; ds le{k gh izLrqr fd;k x;k A bZ [email protected] us ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 ntZ fd;s tkus dh ckr dk mYys[k fd;k gS fdUrq ;g ugh crk;k gS fd ml ij iqfyl }kjk D;k dk;Zokgh dh xbZA dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dk dksbZ izek.k u gksus dh fLFkfr esa vFkok izR;{kn'khZ xokgksa ds lk{; dk tkWp ds nkSjku izLrqr u gksus ls izdj.k lafnX/k gks tkrk gSA tkWp vf/kdkjh us tks fu"d"kZ fudkys gSA os fdlh lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ugh gS cfYd lhfu;j QksjeSu ds mPp in /kkjd gksus ds vk/kkj ij mudh fo'oluh;rk ds vk/kkj ij fudkys gSA oknh ds fo:) fcuk vuqefr fy;s vFkok fcuk lwpuk ds eq[;ky; NksMus ] drZC; ,oa nkf;R;ksa dk fuokZg u djus ds vkjksi yxk;s x;s fdUrq iwoZ esa fcuk lwpuk ds vuqifLFkfr jgus vFkok drZC;ksa ,oa nkf;R;ksa dk fuokgZ u djus dk dksbZ n`"VkUr ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k A izLrqr izdj.k ,d ofj"B deZpkjh }kjk dfu"B deZpkjh ds fo:) yxk;s x;s nqjkpj.k laca/kh vkjksi ls lacaf/kr gS ftlesa tkWp vf/kdkjh us fcuk fdlh Li"V vk/kkj ij ofj"B vf/kdkjh ds lk{; dks egRo fn;k gSA 10& mijksDr fLFkfr esa fn0 3&11&96 ds izdj.k ds vk/kkj ij oknh dks fn0 30&9&97 ds vkns'k }kjk nafMr fd;k tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/kkfud gSA QyLo:i og lsok dh rkjrE;rk lfgr lsok esa iquLFkkZiu dk vf/kdkjh gSA oknh dk iwoZ lsok bfrgkl dyad;qDr gksus dk dksbZ izek.k i=koyh ij miyC/k ugh gSA vr% ikfjr fd;k x;k n.M Hkh vR;f/kd gSA ;g vo'; gS fd oknh dks Lo;a mifLFkfr ysus ds fy;s lhfu;j QksjeSu ls lEidZ djus ds dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugh FkkA mls fyf[kr :i ls ,slk djus ds fy;s dksbZ vkns'k ugh x;k FkkA mlus eq[;ky; fcuk visf{kr vuqefr fy;s A vr% mls bl lhek rd nks"kh ekurs gq;s eSa tgkWa ,d vksj lsok dh rkjrE;rk ,oa cSBdh dh vof/k ds iw.kZ osru lfgr mls iquLFkkZfir fd;s tkus dk vkns'k nsrk gwW ogh ij ;g Hkh n.M izLFkkfir djrk gwW fd mldh lsok esa cgky fd;s tkus ds mijkUr izfroknh mldh ,d o"kZ dh okf"kZd osru o`f) Hkfo"; izHkko lfgr jksds tkus ds fy;s Lora= gksaxsA "
6. 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 Vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, 2005 S.C.C. (L&S) 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) Vs. A.T. Mane, 2005 S.C.C. (L&S) 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.
7. 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 against 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 reported in 2000 (84) FLR 3, 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 it 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.
11. The writ petition stands dismissed.