The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Labour Court Appeal. The bench held that the Single Judge's judgment finding the workman guilty of misconduct was unexceptionable as the management was entitled to amend pleadings and adduce evidence under Section 11-A.
The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
LPA No. 407 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 13, 2010
Inder Parsad
…Appellant
Versus
M/s Frick India Limited and another
…Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. P.K. Kataria, Advocate,
for the appellant.
M.M. KUMAR, J.
This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 7.9.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 12517 of 2000. According to the learned Single Judge a domestic inquiry was instituted on the charges that the workman stopped staff members, namely, Mr. S.N. Pal, General Manager, and Mr. Manohar Lal and other officers from entering the factory on 22.7.1988 when there was a gate meeting of the workers outside the factory. The further allegation was that he used foul
LPA No. 407 of 2010 (O&M)
2
language and caused physical assault on both officers. It was alleged that on 27.3.1989, the workman-appellant had come to the factory to participate in a domestic inquiry held against him. As the Enquiry Officer had not arrived, he was loitering inside the factory and misbehaved with the Security Officer Mr. Kartar Singh by catching hold of his neck with both hands and strangulating him. One Mr. Roop Singh was the eye-witness to the incident. The Labour Court found that the inquiry had not been held properly nor it was fair. The management sought to prove the misconduct by seeking to amend the written reply by bringing on record more facts and also proving the misconduct by evidence before the Labour Court.
LPA No. 407 of 2010 (O&M)
3
management had lost its confidence in the workman and had offered a cheque of Rs. 8308.35 for notice pay and retrenchment compensation; (iii) the workman had been profitably employed on higher salary; and (iv) his past conduct had been one of recurrent trouble making and compensation alone would be appropriate relief even if the discharge was found to be harsh or improper.
489 .
LPA No. 407 of 2010 (O&M)
4
was physically assaulted on 27.3.2009. Learned Single Judge has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 1 SCC 430 , for supporting the view that punishment of removal for misconduct of physical assault on the superior officer would be justified if industrial discipline is to be preserved at the workplace.
the charges. The appeal does not warrant admission as there is no legal infirmity. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
July 13, 2010
(A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE
Pkapoor
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court justified in conducting inquiry in two stages and allowing amendment of written reply by management.
Whether the charging workman was prejudiced by amendment in the domestic inquiry.
Whether the charges of physical assault on superior officers were sustained by evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management and othersDistinguished¶21
The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management and others, (1973) 1 SCC 813 · Who else cites this
Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Utam Manohar NakateRelied on¶25
Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Utam Manohar Nakate, (2005) 2 SCC 489 · Who else cites this
Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶30
Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 1 SCC 430 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Inder Parsad
M/s Frick India Limited
M.M. KUMAR
A.N. JINDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
