CWP challenging an Industrial Tribunal’s award upholding termination. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding the Labour Court justifiably rejected the claim for leniency due to the petitioner’s long history of misconduct and admitted guilt.
The writ petition was 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.
CWP No. 2539 of 2014 (O & M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.M. No. 3208 of 2014 in/and CWP No. 2539 of 2014 (O & M) Date of decision: 20.03.2014
Ram Gopal
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala and others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
C.M. No. 3208 of 2014
Application for placing on record Annexures P-2 and P-3 and for exemption from filing certified copy of the same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CWP No. 2539 of 2014
The present writ petition has been filed by the workman whereby, he challenges the award dated 10.05.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala wherein, it has been held that the workman was rightly terminated by the respondent-management and was not entitled to get any relief in the reference.
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that proper opportunity was not granted to him and he was forced to confess and on the basis of the said admission, the termination order has been passed against
Gupta Shivani 2014.04.09 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No. 2539 of 2014 (O & M)
2
him keeping in view the earlier service record without giving any opportunity to the workman regarding this fact.
After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that there is no dispute that the powers of the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are very wide and it can substitute the punishment of removal with lesser punishment under the Act in view of the long service period of workman from the year 1976 onwards till 2001. However, the facts in the present case have to be noticed as this Court is of the opinion that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the Labour Court was well justified in denying the said relief to the petitioner-workman.
A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the workman was appointed on 21.11.1976 as a Conductor and was charge sheeted on 29.03.2011 for the following charges:-
2. Misbehavior with checking staff.
3. Discipline violation
4. Misconduct.”
The petitioner-workman appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 05.04.2001 and admitted all the allegations against him and opted not to get a departmental inquiry and was willing to accept the decision which was to be announced by the General Manager. Accordingly, the inquiry report was submitted and in pursuance of which, the termination order was passed on 15.05.2001, which was challenged before the Labour Court being violative of principles of natural justice.
In reply, the respondent-management took the plea that the
Gupta Shivani 2014.04.09 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No. 2539 of 2014 (O & M)
3
removal order was passed keeping in view the gravity of the charges levelled and proved and the reply to the charge sheet was considered and the workman was given personal hearing on 10.05.2001 before the order of termination was passed. The following issues were framed by the Labour
Court:-
“1. Whether the respondent department conducted a fair and proper departmental enquiry before terminating the services of the petitioner? OPR
2. Whether the termination of the services of
the petitioner is valid and in order? OPR
3. If the above said issues do not succeed then
what relief the petitioner is entitled to? OPP
4. Relief.”
The management examined MW-1 Subhash Chander who produced the inquiry file to prove that a fair and proper departmental inquiry was held before termination of the services of the petitioner. MW-2 Udham Singh-Superintendent was also examined who was the Inquiry Officer. The workman examined himself as WW-1 and reiterated his case.
The Labour Court, after taking into account the inquiry report and the inquiry file Ex.M-1, which was submitted by the Inquiry Officer, came to the conclusion that fair and proper inquiry was conducted and the findings against the workman were based on his own admission and even show cause notice was served on him proposing penalty of termination of his services and he was properly heard. The argument of the authorized representative of the workman that the workman should be treated with leniency and reducing the punishment from the order of termination to any other lesser punishment was rejected by noting that his record was not Gupta Shivani proper. The relevant portion reads thus:2014.04.09 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No. 2539 of 2014 (O & M)
4
“He admitted as correct that he was warned, but he was unable to say whether he was warned 92 times. He further admitted that his services were censured 22 times. He was unable to tell the correct number of his suspension. He denied the suggestion that he was placed under suspension for 12 times. He admitted as correct that his increments were stopped in other cases and was released later.”
After placing reliance upon various judgments, it was also held that admission was the best evidence and, therefore, the inquiry was just and proper. A factual finding has thus been recorded that the inquiry proceedings were fair and proper and the Investigating Officer was also examined to show that proper procedure was followed. A factual finding is not liable to be thus interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is settled principle that this Court is not sitting as a court of appeal and is only to see whether proper procedure has been followed and principles of natural justice are not violated and whether there was jurisdiction with the Tribunal. The Tribunal has already noticed that the employee did not have a good record and, therefore, declined to interfere in the order of punishment.
Counsel for the petitioner has produced the record whereby the order of termination was passed on 15.05.2001 by the General Manager. A perusal of the said file would go on to show that apart from the warning of 92 times, censure of 29 times, suspension of 12 times, the employee's 8 increments had been stopped without cumulative effect and 9 with cumulative effect. It was also noted that 4 without cumulative effect and 5 increments with cumulative effect had been released by the Labour Gupta Shivani Commissioner. Thus, all these above facts would go on to show that the 2014.04.09 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No. 2539 of 2014 (O & M)
5
employee during his long tenure was guilty of various misconducts and had been granted several opportunities to redeem himself but he continued to cheat the State and eventually a harsh order of termination was passed terminating his services.
Keeping in view the factual background of the case, no fault can be found with the award of the Labour Court whereby it has declined to interfere in the order of termination. There is no scope for interference in the present writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine.
Gupta Shivani 2014.04.09 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should interfere with the Labour Court’s finding that the termination order was based on fair inquiry and the petitioner’s own admission.
Whether the workman is entitled to a lesser punishment than termination given his long service and past misconduct record.
Ram Gopal
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala
G.S. Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
