Petitioner challenged the termination order dismissed by the Industrial Court under MRTU & PULP Act. Court held writ court cannot reappreciate evidence. Found Labour Court right; petitioner failed to contest admission letter. Petition dismissed.
No order passed as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1447 OF 2003
Shrikrishna G. Hadkar. .. Petitioner.
vs.
Apollo Textile Mills
National Textile Mills
(SM) Limited & Ors. .. Respondents.
Ms. Hutoxi Tavadia for petitioner.
Mrs. Meena Doshi for respondents.
CORAM : S.U. KAMDAR, J.
DATE : 20th April, 2006.
P.C.:
. The present writ petition is filed
challenging the order of the Presiding Officer dated
18.2.2002 and the order passed by the Industrial
Court in Revision Application No. 40 of 2002 dated
12/11/2002. Some of the material facts of the
present case briefly enumerated are as under:-
2. The petitioner was in the employment of the
respondent company since 1974 and his services were
terminated on 26.4.1997. The charge which was
2
framed against him was that on 28.10.1996 the
petitioner was on duty in the grain shop department
and while discharging duty gave excess ration to one
Sadashiv Narsu. When said Sadashiv Narsu reached
the mill gate along with ration the watchman stopped
him and he was checked. The ration taken by him was
measured and it was found that there was 201.50 kgs
in excess whereas Narsu was having gate passes only
for 18 kgs wheat dated 25.10.1996 and 57 kgs., wheat
dated 28.10.1996. The explanation given by the
workman was that the said Mr. Narsu demanded 200
kgs. of wheat and he produced 7 to 8 small unit
cards and one of them was big units. He has stated
that accordingly he made cash memo and handed over
100 kgs of wheat and decided to make cash memo for
balance 100 kgs of wheat as per the availability of
the card holders. He also gave his apology. It
seems that thereafter a charge sheet was issued on
30.10.1996 and the same was served upon the
petitioner. It is the case of the respondent that
the petitioner has admitted the charge by a letter
dated 30.10.1996. However, after the enquiry the
said petitioner’s services were terminated.
3. The said termination order was challenged by
filing a complaint under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as the MRTU & PULP Act)
3
being Complaint (ULP) No. 23 of 1997 under item 1
of Schedule IV of the said Act. It was contended
that the dismissal of the petitioner is by way of
victimisation and, therefore, the said order of
termination should be set aside. After the enquiry,
the Labour Court gave a finding that the enquiry is
vitiated as not fair and proper. The Labour Court
thereafter gave an opportunity to the respondent
company to lead evidence to prove their charges
before the Court. Both the parties have led fresh
evidence before the Labour Court and after
considering the evidence and the material on record
the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the
case of the petitioner has been proved. While
giving the aforesaid finding the Labour Court has
relied upon the admission of the petitioner himself
by way of a letter dated 30.10.1996 as well as the
panchanama prepared when said Narsu was examined and
excess quantity of wheat was found. The respondent
company has also led the oral evidence before the
Labour Court. After considering the aforesaid
evidence the Labour Court has come to the conclusion
that the charge against the petitioner has been
established.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner preferred a revision application under
Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act and by an order
and judgment dated 12/11/2002 the Industrial Court
4
has also dismissed the said revision. The
Industrial Court has come to the conclusion that the
order under revision is not perverse and there is
sufficient evidence on record to establish that the
petitioner has misappropriated the amount. It has
also given a finding that on the inspection being
carried out in fact more amount was found in cash
box than can be accounted for. The Industrial Court
has accordingly dismissed the said revision
application. However, while passing the operative
order the Industrial Court has set aside the order
of cost which was imposed on the petitioner and only
dismissed the compliant.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has taken me through the oral evidence of
all the witnesses as well as the documentary
evidence which is at pages 166 to 170 of the paper
book in the form of visit book and the complaint
book. The learned counsel has submitted that the
charge against the petitioner of misappropriation of
ration or permitting withdrawal of excess ration is
not proved on the evidence on record. The learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once
enquiry proceedings having set aside it was the duty
of the respondent to establish the said charge by
leading fresh evidence in Court and the respondent
having failed to do so the petitioner could not have
been terminated from his services. The learned
5
counsel for the petitioner while analysing the
evidence of the watchman which has been annexed to
the petition has submitted that the watchman has in
his evidence stated in the cross-examinatino that
there were two gunny bags which were totally
destroyed and it has been submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that there was a shortage
of ration on physical verification was due to the
destruction of two gunny bags of grains. However,
on perusal of the evidence it is found that in the
cross-examination he has in fact denied that two
gunny bags were destroyed due to insects. While
placing reliance on the said evidence further, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has contended
that the evidence of the watchmen shows that he did
not go and personally verify the ration in the
ration shop and, therefore, the evidence of the
watchman was required to be discarded. Similarly,
the learned counsel for the petitioner has also
commented on the evidence of the respondent and has
contended that it is not trustworthy to punish the
petitioner by way of dismissal from service.
6. I am of the opinion that in writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India it is not permissible to reappreciate the
evidence. On the facts of the present case it is
established that there is an admission on the part
of the workman by letter dated 30.10.1996 that he
6
has committed the said misconduct by permitting
excess withdrawal of the ration from the ration
shop. Though the petitioner has contended that the
said letter has been obtained by force but on the
perusal of the evidence of the petitioner there is
not even a statement made that the said letter dated
30.10.1996 was forcibly obtained. It has been
further submitted that once the enquiry conducted by
the respondent has been set aside then the said
letter cannot be read in evidence before the Labour
Court where the fresh evidence is led. I am not
inclined to accept either of the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly
because the letter dated 30.10.1996 is on record and
it cannot be that when the respondent employer is
permitted to lead further evidence he is not
entitled to rely upon the letter which was there
before the enquiry officer. The very same material
can be relied upon by the respondent employer while
leading evidence afresh before the Labour Court so
as to establish afresh the charges which are
levelled against the petitioner employee. Secondly,
it was the duty of the petitioner to dispute the
veracity of the said letter dated 30.10.1996 or
ought to have led evidence to establish that the
same was obtained by force or coercion. Having not
done the said exercise, in my opinion, the findings
given by the Labour Court in para 10 of the said
judgment are not required to be interfered with. I
7
do not find any perversity in the order passed by
the Labour Court. In so far as the contention that
the visit book and complaint book does not indicate
any shortage of the said ration material, I am of
the view that the Labour Court was right in holding
that the said visit book or complaint book does not
indicate that on the visit to the ration shop there
was actual, physical verification of the ration in
the said shop. The visit book does show that the
ration officer had visited the shop on that date and
recorded the information furnished to him in the
visit book however, there is no entry indicating any
actual physical verification of ration in the said
shop premises by the rationing officer. In so far
as complaint book is concerned, it only indicates
that there is no complaint lodged by the ration card
holder. In my opinion either of the aforesaid
documentary evidence establish the innocence of the
petitioner. In that light of the matter, there is
no substance in the present petition. Accordingly,
the petition fails and the same is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 permits reappreciation of evidence to challenge the finding of the Labour Court?
Whether the employer can rely on a previous admission letter despite the earlier enquiry being set aside?
Whether the visit book and complaint book establish the innocence of the petitioner?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Shrikrishna G. Hadkar
Apollo Textile Mills National Textile Mills (SM) Limited
S.U. KAMDCAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court