Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1047 (JHR)

Madhav Rao v. Presiding Officer Labour Court

2002-09-19

M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the award dated 18.8.1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 1/92 whereby he has held that the termination of the services of the petitioner is proper and justified and the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement or any other relief. 2. It appears that by virtue of notification dated 28.11.1991 the following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication : "Whether termination of service of Shri Madhav Rao, TEM No. 15830, HMBP-- Workman of M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranchi is proper and justified? If not, whether he is entitled for reinstatement or to any other relief." 3. The case of the workman was that he was appointed as VTS Operator in 1963. In 1972 he was to go to Madras by availing the LTA claim. He applied for advance for that purpose. Though he received the amount from the Company but he could not travel to Madras. The management then filed a criminal case against him and the Special Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Patna found him guilty and convicted him by sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 18 months. The concerned workman further alleged that he filed appeal before the Sessions Judge, Patna who set aside the order of conviction and sentence and directed that the workman be put on probation for being of good behaviour for a period of 18 months. As the management did not take back the concerned workman in service in spite of the order of the Sessions Judge, the workman filed a writ petition for quashing the order of termination. In the said writ petition it was observed that the concerned workman may get his matter adjudicated by the civil Court. Consequently the dispute was referred to the civil Court. Further case of the concerned workman is that the management, without framing any charge and without holding any domestic inquiry, passed the order of termination of services of the petitioner on the basis of the conviction and sentence passed by the criminal Court. 4. The case of the management, on the other hand, is that consequent upon the conviction and sentence of the concerned workman by the Special Magistrate, 1st class, Patna his service was terminated with effect from 20.10.1975. 4. The case of the management, on the other hand, is that consequent upon the conviction and sentence of the concerned workman by the Special Magistrate, 1st class, Patna his service was terminated with effect from 20.10.1975. According to the management Clause 31 of the Certified Standing. Order provides for termination in the event of conviction in a criminal case without following the procedures laid down in the Standing Order. 5. The Labour Court, after considering the relevant provisions of the Standing Order and on perusal of the relevant documents, came to the conclusion that the appellate Court in the appeal filed by the workman against the judgment of conviction, dismissed the said appeal and directed the workman-appellant to execute a bond for maintaining peace and to be of good behaviour for one and half years. The Labour Court held that the concerned workman was never exonerated from the charge and his conviction was not set aside. The tribunal held that as per the Standing Order the services of the petitioner was rightly terminated and he is not entitled to reinstatement in service. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that the labour Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that by reason of misconduct committed by the petitioner, the amount could have been recovered from him instead of terminating his services. Learned counsel submitted that the provisions of the Standing Order giving right to the management to terminate the services on account of conviction is defective and the labour Court ought not to have relied upon the said Standing Order. 7. As noticed above, the petitioner was convicted by the Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna. The appeal preferred by him was also dismissed, the contention of the petitioner that the appellate Court directed the management to keep the petitioner on probation, is not correct, the relevant portion of the judgment which is Annexure A to the counter affidavit is quoted hereinbelow : "The applications for leave and DIR taken by the accused all have been proved by those witnesses through Exts. 5 and 6. 5 and 6. Thus on a close scrutiny of the evidence, facts and circumstances I am satisfied that the accused in fact had never gone to Madras from Ranchi along with his family members to perform his LTA journey but in spite of that he dishonestly attempted to cheat the HEC in which he was working and had submitted incorrect LTA bill. He has also forged earlier receipt purported to be under the signature of Bhagwan Das which are Exts. 4 and 4/1 knowing fully that those documents were forged but he attempted to use them as genuine one for the purpose of withdrawing his LTA bill. Under such circumstances, he was rightly convicted under Sections 420/511 and 465/471, IPC and therefore, his conviction thereunder are maintained. Coming to the sentence, I find that he has already suffered adequate mental agony, stress and strain for a considerable period for the wrongful criminal act committed by him and the amount involved is also meagre. He is likely to be thrown out of the employment with detriment result affecting his whole family life. Under such circumstances, I think that Section 360, Cr PC should be applied in his case. The trial Court has not applied this mandatory provision of Sections 360 and 361 of the Cr PC nor has assigned any reason as to why he has not complied with this provisions of law. Under such circumstances, the substantive sentence imposed against the accused-appellant is kept in abeyance for a period of one and half years and the accused-appellant is directed to be released on furnishing a bond of Rs. 5000/- with two sureties of the like amount each in Court below to maintain peace and be of a good behaviour for one and half years only. After lapse of stipulated period, the substantive sentence imposed against the accused-appellant shall stand satisfied and he need no be required to serve out any sentence. In the result, for the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly, dismissed subject to the release of the appellant on execution of the bond as indicated above, The substantive sentence imposed against the accused-appellant is suspended for the aforesaid period. In the result, for the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly, dismissed subject to the release of the appellant on execution of the bond as indicated above, The substantive sentence imposed against the accused-appellant is suspended for the aforesaid period. In case of failure to execute bond in the manner indicated above or in case of breach of the terms of the bond, the accused-appellant shall be required to serve out the sentences imposed against him." 8. From perusal of the judgment it appears that the conviction of the petitioner was upheld by the appellate Court. The termination of the services of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to be unjustified. The last contention of the learned counsel that the order of termination is violative of the principles of natural justice is also not sustainable in law. It is well settled that if services of an employee is terminated as per the Standing Order, in case of conviction and sentence of imprisonment then it is not violative, of the principles of natural justice. Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hukum Chand v. Chhabban Co-operative Central Bank reported in 1988 (2) SCC 291. 9. Taking into consideration all these facts I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the labour Court. No relief can be granted to the petitioner. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.