Allowed

The General Manager, v. Shaik Moinuddin died L.R.s

Telangana HC25 Jun 2010WP/31390/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chief Justice allowed the writ petition and quashed the Tribunal's award because the adjudicating officer erred in overturning an enquiry officer's finding based on conjectures. Instead of dismissing the matter, the court directed the company to pay additional compensation to the workman's widow.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned award and directed the petitioner to pay an additional amount of Rs.82,297/- to the widow within one month.

The General Manager, Vs Shaik Moinuddin died L.R.s — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON’BLE SHRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶2

Writ Petition No. 31390 of 1997

¶3

The General Manager, Area-I, Ramagundam Division, Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District

¶4

…….. Petitioner

¶5

And

¶6

Shaik Moinuddin (died) & others

¶7

………. Respondents

¶8

:: O R D E R ::

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. V. Uma Devi

¶10

Counsel for the respondents: None

¶11

18.04.2007

¶12

This is petition a petition for quashing award dated 25.4.1994 passed by the Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Tribunal’) in I.D.No.41 of 1989 whereby he declared the dismissal of the workman viz., late Sri Shaik Mohinuddin as illegal and directed the petitioner to pay monetary benefits to his legal heirs (respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein).

¶13

Late Sri Shaik Mohinuddin joined the service of Ramagundam division of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Company’) as General Mazdoor in 1963. He was promoted as Motor Mechanic in 1968. In October, 1982 an enquiry was initiated against him on the charge that he committed theft of gear box. The enquiry officer submitted report with the finding that the charge levelled against the delinquent is proved. After going through the enquiry report and his past record, the disciplinary authority i.e. the

¶14

General Manager, Area-I, Ramagundam Division of the petitioner Company passed order dated 6.8.1983 whereby he dismissed Sri Shaik Mohinuddin from service. The latter challenged his dismissal by raising an industrial dispute. The Government of India referred the following dispute to the Tribunal:

¶15

“Whether the action of the Management of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Area – I, Ramagundam Divn. P.O. Godavarikhani, Distt. Karimnagar (AP) in dismissing Shaik Mohinuddin, Motor Mechanic, Auto Workshop, w.e.f. 6.8.83 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?

¶16

By an award dated 21.11.1990, the Tribunal answered the reference against Sri Shaik Mohinuddin because he neither filed statement of claim nor produced any evidence to substantiate his challenge to the order of dismissal. The Tribunal held that the allegation of theft found proved against the workman constitutes misconduct under Clauses 16 (2) and 16 (9) of the Standing Orders of the company and there is no valid ground to set aside the order of dismissal because the workman had admitted his guilt before the enquiry officer.

¶17

It appears that the aforementioned award was subsequently recalled. This inference is being drawn because after considering the evidence produced by the parties, the Tribunal passed fresh award dated 25.4.1994, the operative part of which reads as under:

¶18

“7. In the result, the action of the Management of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Area-I, Ramagundam Division, P.O. Godavarikhani, Dist. Karimnagar in dismissing Shaik Mohinuddin, Motor Mechanic, Auto Workshop w.e.f. 6-8-1983 is not justified. Since the workman in question died, from the date of dismissal to the date of death, whatever benefits that will be extended to the members of the family of the deceased workman within three months from the date of publication of this Award.”

¶19

The petitioner has questioned the impugned award mainly on the ground that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer on the misconduct committed by

¶20

late Sri Shaik Mohinuddin. The case of the petitioner is that the enquiry was held in consonance with the rules of natural justice and ample opportunity was given to the delinquent viz., Sri Shaik Mohinudin, to cross-examine the witnesses of the management and also to produce evidence in his defence.

¶21

Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned award is liable to set aside because the learned Presiding Officer overturned the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer without assigning cogent reason. Learned counsel emphasised that while exercising power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), the adjudicating body cannot sit in appeal over the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry and interfere with the discretion exercised by the employer to impose particular penalty on the delinquent workman except when the enquiry is found to be vitiated due to violation of rules of natural justice or the finding is shown to be based on no evidence. At the end of her submissions, Ms. V. Uma Devi, on instructions, stated that in addition to Rs.82,297/- already deposited by the petitioner-company, an additional amount of Rs.82,297/- will be paid to respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

¶22

We have given serious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel. Although the powers vested in the adjudicating body under Section 11-A of the Act in matters involving dismissal or discharge of workmen are very wide and such body can re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of satisfying itself that the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry is reasonably plausible but it cannot set aside the order of punishment on the premise that the evidence produced by the employer was not sufficient for proving the charge – Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd .^[1] , and South Indian Cashew Factories Workers’ Union v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd .^[2]

¶23

In the present case, we find that the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal did not find any illegality in the conduct of domestic

¶24

enquiry. He also did not find any error in the appreciation of evidence by the Enquiry Officer but nullified the penalty imposed on late Sri Shaik Mohinuddin by observing that the charge of theft of heavy material like gear box does not appear to be well founded. This was clearly impermissible. In our opinion, the learned Presiding Officer could not have overturned the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer by entering into the realm of conjectures and assumptions.

¶25

For the reason stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award is quashed. However, keeping in view the statement made by Ms. V. Uma Devi, we direct the petitioner to pay an additional amount of Rs.82,297/- to Smt. Yakoob Bee, widow of Sri Shaik Moinuddin, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forward a copy of this order to District Judge, Karimnagar who should ensure that the same be served on the widow of deceased.

¶27

G.S.SINGHVI, C.J.

¶28

18.04.2007 ksld

¶29

[1] (1973) 1 SCC 813. [2] (2006) 5 SCC 201.

The General Manager, v. Shaik Moinuddin died L.R.s

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager, v. Shaik Moinuddin died L.R.s

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.C.Guravaiah, Vs The Executive Officer

T.Nagendra, Vs a.P.State Road Transport Corportion

The Krishna Oberoi Vs Assistant Commissioner of Labour Circle No.Iii

P. Surappadu, Vs M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Sergeant B.V. Raju,(Service No. 67487-A), Vs Union of India

B.Reddappa Vs The Government of A.P. Finance Department