JUDGMENT
K.C. Puri, J.
1. Roop Chand Verma petitioner has filed this Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ for quashing the award of the Labour Court, dated 10.5.1999, Annexure P10 and directing respondent No. 2 to reinstate him with full back wages.
2. It is averred in the petition that he was appointed as a Workman in the factory of respondent No. 2 in the year 1975. After departmental interview and selection, he was promoted to the post of Checker-cum-Junior Clerk in the year 1976. In the year 1978, he passed the written test and interview for the post of Accounts Clerk but the work of Accounts Clerk was not given to him. Since he was insisting upon giving him the post of Accounts Clerk, respondent No. 2 got annoyed with him. A false charge sheet dated 4.10.1981 was served upon him. He sent reply to the same but it was not accepted. He sent it by registered post. Another false charge-sheet was served upon him on 8.11.1981. The main charge of misbehaviour against him related to 3.10.1981. But, on this date, the factory was closed which shows that the charges were fabricated. The charge against him in the charge sheet dated 7.11.1981 was that he had remained absent on various occasions from 15 minutes to 53 minutes. The other charge against him was that he tried to assault Mr. J.P.Aggarwal but the later was saved. He denied the allegations against him. Consequently, a domestic enquiry was ordered against him. In the domestic enquiry, list of witnesses was not supplied to him despite requests. On one occasion, he was informed by the Inquiry Officer that the management would examine N.K.Garg and Attar Singh but on the next date, J.N.Garg and Amrit Lal were produced as witnesses and he had not prepared the cross-examination of these witnesses. The domestic enquiry was closed on 14.7.1983 and he received dismissal letter dated 12.7.1983. Neither any show cause notice nor any enquiry report was supplied to him. The petitioner served a demand notice on the management on 26.8.1983. Conciliation meetings were held by the Labour and Conciliation Officer but no settlement could be arrived at. Thereafter, the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak.
3. It is further pleaded that the Labour Court passed an award on 10.5.1999 in which it was held that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the punishment was not excessive. The petitioner has termed the award of the Labour Court as illegal and arbitrary on the grounds that he was not given any opportunity to give reply to the connected charge sheet prepared by the management; that the enquiry held by the management was not fair and proper; that he was not supplied a list of witnesses or their statements in advance; that the order of dismissal has been passed without issuing him a show cause notice or supplying him copy of enquiry report; that there was no documentary evidence regarding his absence; that there was no evidence of misbehaviour on 3.10.1981,particularly when the factory was closed on that date; that he never behaved rudely or tried to hit Shri J.P.Aggarwal and that the charge regarding delay in preparation of balance sheet was unjustified as he was working on the post of Clerk and not on the post of Accounts Clerk.
4. Respondent No. 2 contested the claim of the petitioner and pleaded in the written statement that in case the officials were annoyed with the petitioner, then he would not have been promoted to the post of a Clerk in the Store and Purchase Accounts Section. The petitioner had been continuously in the habit of absenting himself from duty in an unauthorised manner. He was found absent from duty on 4.10.1981 and, therefore, a charge sheet was served upon him on 4.10.1981 and he replied to the same on the same day. It was denied that a false and fabricated charge sheet dated 7.11.1981 was served upon the petitioner. A complaint dated 5.10.1981 was received by the Factory Manager from the Incharge of the Cost Accounts Section regarding repeated unauthorised absence from duty by the petitioner and his misbehaviour with the Incharge of the Cost Accounts Section. The main and substantial charges against the petitioner were his unauthorised absence from duty on as many as 17 occasions in the months of August, September and October,1981 and misbehaviour of the petitioner with his superiors. On 4.10.1981, the factory was working and the petitioner was absent from duty for 25 minutes. When he was pulled up for his unauthorised absence from duty, he misbehaved with the Incharge of the Accounts Section, Shri J.P.Aggarwal. The charges contained in the charge sheet were factually correct and were proved in the domestic enquiry. It was denied that the petitioner had completed the balance sheet ahead of all others. The petitioner did not produce any evidence before the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the management and to produce his evidence in defence. During the enquiry proceedings, list of witnesses as well as all other documents relevant to the enquiry were supplied to the petitioner. In the registered letter dated 5.11.1982, the petitioner was informed that N.K.Garg and Attar Singh would be examined on 19.11.1982 in the enquiry proceedings but somehow these witnesses were not considered material by the management and were not examined but instead J.N.Garg and Amrit Lal, who were eye witnesses to the incident of misbehaviour with Mr. J.P.Aggarwal were examined. From the report of the Inquiry Officer, the guilt of the petitioner was proved and, therefore, he was rightly dismissed from service vide order dated 12.7.1983.
5. I have heard arguments of counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that charge sheet, Annexure P-1, was served which contained minor allegations. The petitioner replied to that charge sheet, Annexure P-2. Another charge-sheet, Annexure P-3 was served upon the petitioner wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner remained absent from his seat for a few minutes, as detailed in Annexure P-3. It was not a case of absence from duty but absence from the seat. The other charge against the petitioner is that he mis-behaved with the superior officer on 3.10.1981. 3.10.1981 was a holiday and, later on, the charge regarding mis-behaviour was changed to 4.10.1981, but, on that day also, it was Sunday. So, no charge is proved against the petitioner. Otherwise also, the services of the petitioner could not be terminated on such small charges. The Labour Court has not taken into account the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) in which it has been laid down that the Labour Court can interfere in case the punishment does not commensurate with the charges against the delinquent official. The Labour Court can also go into the controversy whether the domestic inquiry conducted by the management is not in accordance with the provisions of law. The domestic inquiry cannot be said to be, in any way, in accordance with law. So, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set side and the petitioner may be ordered to be reinstated with full back wages. In support of his contention, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following authorities:
1. Jaswinder Singh v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and Ors. 1996(1) Services Law Reporter 576.
2. The Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. v. The Management and Ors. 1973 Lab.I.C.851.
3. Ram Singh v. State of Punjab 1998(3) S.C.T.46.
4. Mangat Rai v. Punjab Road Transport Corporation 1998(1) Service Cases Today 771.
5. State of Punjab v.Shatrughan Lal and Anr. 1998 Lab. I.C.3489.
6. State of Tamil Nadu v. Thiru K.V. Perumal and Ors. 1996(6) Judgments Today (SC) 604. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2/workman has supported the award of the Labour Court.
7. I have given my careful consideration to the rival submissions of counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
8. The main stress laid by the counsel for the petitioner is on the point that the Labour Court has not properly appreciated the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act.
9. This submission is without any legal force. The learned Labour Court in para No. 9 of the award has held that the workman remained absent from duty unauthorisedly on 17 occasions and has not prepared the balance sheet. He has also mis-behaved with the senior officer as per inquiry report. From the inquiry report, it is revealed that the petitioner not only mis-behaved with the senior officer but has threatened the senior officer to slap him. This type of attitude of the workman cannot be ignored lightly. The discipline in the Institution will collapse in case such type of employee is allowed to be retained in service. From a perusal of Annexure P-3, it is revealed that the petitioner has absented from his duty for number of times from 2nd of August, 1981 to 4th of October, 1981 on 17 occasions. He has not prepared the balance sheet. So, it cannot be said in any manner that the inquiry conducted by the department, in any way, is faulty.
10. So far as authorities in Jaswinder Singh, Ram Singh and Mangat Rai cases (supra) are concerned, these relate to exercising of power by the Labour Court and the High Court under Section 11-A of the Act. There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in these rulings that the Labour Court can interfere under Section 11-A of the Act to reduce the punishment in case the same is harsh and does not commensurate with the fault of the employee/workman. In the present case, as discussed above, the punishment of termination cannot be said to be, in any way, on a higher side. In authority Firestone Tyre case (supra), it has been held by the Apex Court that the Labour Court can appreciate the evidence before the domestic inquiry and the evidence produced before the Labour Court, but, in the present case, the Labour Court, after going through the inquiry report and the evidence produced before it came to the conclusion that the domestic inquiry was legal and as such the petitioner cannot have the benefit of the above-said authority. Authority in Shatrughan Lal’s case (supra) relates to Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In that case, the copies of the statements of the witnesses were not supplied even though they were asked for. The said authority is distinguishable as there is no similar fact in the present case. In authority in Thiru’s case (supra), it has been held that non supply of documents may prejudice the delinquent. The said authority is distinguishable as, in the present case, the counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out which documents were not supplied to the petitioner, and how the petitioner was prejudiced.
11. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.
