IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No. 679 of 2010
The Management of M/S Bokaro Steel Plant,
Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Their Workman Sri J.P. Singh Respondent
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI
------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra
For the Respondent
-----
02/30.03.2010
This is a writ petition filed by the Management challenges the award of the
Labour Court, Bokaro dated 30.12.2008 by which the Labour Court has set aside
the punishment imposed upon the workman.
Two charges were levelled against the workman. With regard to one
charge, it has been held in the impugned award in paragraph No. 25 that the
Enquiry Officer did not find material against the workman for proving the 1st
charge of “dishonesty in the Company’s property”. However, the Disciplinary
Authority without issuing any notice to the workman or giving him an opportunity
to represent against the proposed disagreement by the disciplinary authority with
the Enquiry Officer’s report in respect of the aforesaid charge found the workman
guilty of both the charges vide office order dated 31.10.1997.
On the aforesaid ground the Labour Court has found the principles of
natural justice having been violated and has accordingly set aside the finding.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it was not necessary for
the disciplinary authority to give any notice to the workman regarding the
proposed disagreement with the Enquiry officer’s report in respect of the
aforesaid charge.
The argument is totally unfounded and against the basic principles of well
settled law. Once a finding has been recorded in favour of the delinquent
employee by the enquiry officer and if the disciplinary authority proposes to
disagree with the finding and to hold the employee guilty, it is absolutely essential
on the part of the disciplinary authority to communicate by a notice his proposal to
disagree and the tentative reasons for such disagreement to enable the employee
to meet the reasons. In this connection reference may be made to AIR 1963 SC
1612 State of Assam Vs. Bimal Kumar Pandit and (1998) 3SCC 385 State of
Rajasthan Vs. M. C. Saxena.
In respect of the second charge the enquiry officer has held that the
punishment imposed was a major punishment and it has been imposed without
furnishing a copy of the enquiry report to the workman and without issuing a
show-cause notice.
It has also been recorded in paragraph No. 35 that the workman had
requested for making him available a copy of the enquiry report.
It has been held by the Supreme Court that the enquiry officer’s report
forms one of the elements which influences the mind of the disciplinary authority
and therefore, the principles of natural justice requires that before allowing such a
material to influence the mind of the disciplinary authority, a copy of the report
should be made available to the delinquent employee and he should be allowed
to represent against the finding of the guilt.
Therefore, on this ground also the principles of natural justice have been
violated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the certified standing orders.
It is well settled that principles of natural justice will always apply unless
excluded.
I do not find anything in the certified standing orders which exclude the
principles of natural justice. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the standing
orders about the situations where the second show-cause is necessary is again
misconceived.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and another vs.
Ashok Kumar Arora, reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1030. That decision in
paragraph No. 18 clearly says that interference in the domestic enquiry and the
punishment is permissible where there is a nonobservance of the principles of
natural justice.
I find from the above discussion that on both the charges the principles of
natural justice were violated and accordingly the order of the Labour Court is
correct and calls for no interference.
This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Sushil Harkauli, J.)
D.S./K