Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1881 (RAJ)

Rajasthan State Co v. Labour Court Bhilwara

2002-11-26

PRAKASH TATIA

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Award dated 7th Nov., 2000 by which the learned Labour Court found that the order of removal from service passed against the employee non-petitioner dated 24th Dec., 1988 is illegal and improper and the employee is entitled for order of reinstatement and all the consequential benefits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that there is allegation against the non-petitioner employee that on 17th Oct., 1987 when he was working in the petitioner's institution on the post of Store-Boy, at about 12.30 noon he was found with a bundle of copper wire and as soon as he took that bundle of copper wire in his hand, Store Officer came and caught him. A show cause notice was issued and chargesheet was also served on the non-petitioner employee and enquiry was conducted. It is found from the facts mentioned in the impugned Award that at that time Enquiry Report was not provided to the employee non-petitioner, therefore, the non-petitioner preferred a writ petition, which appears to have been allowed. The matter was taken upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court vide order dated 22nd March, 1998 set aside the order dated 5th Feb., 1992 with a direction that a copy of Enquiry Report may be provided to the non-petitioner employee. It appears that the matter was remanded by the High Court to the labour Court on the ground that it involves certain disputed questions of fact which require determination. In these circumstances, the matter was taken up by the Labour court, Bhilwara. The Labour Court, Bhilwara, in its impugned order dated 7th Nov., 2000 held that non-petitioner was served with the chargesheet containing a charge that on 17th Oct., 1987 at about 12.30 P.M. with an intention of theft he was collecting the copper wire so that he may take it with him. It is also stated in the chargesheet that non-petitioner employee was caught red handed and he was found sitting in suspicious circumstances, therefore, he has committed grave misconduct of committing theft but the labour Court found that this is case of no evidence with respect to the alleged allegation of theft and not only this but even the employer failed to prove allegation of attempt of theft against the non-petitioner employee. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner was working as Store Boy. The time was 12.30 P.M. i.e. in day hours, the alleged quantity of copper wire is stated to be 40 to 50 grams which according to the employee was only 10 to 15 grams. The Labour Court also took note of the improbabilities in the alleged event and also found that the document which was alleged to have been written by the non-petitioner contains no date and even after considering this evidence, the Labour Court found that the allegation has not been proved. The Tribunal fund that this is a case of no evidence at all. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the non-petitioner himself admitted before the Labour Court that the departmental enquiry was conducted absolutely in accordance with the rules and also fairly. Therefore, after this the non-petitioner employee has no right to challenge the order which was passed in departmental enquiry. It is also submitted that the Labour Court has committed grave error of law in re-appreciating the evidence and further committed illegality by ignoring the settled legal position that if the conclusion drawn in the domestic enquiry is based upon some evidence, and on the same evidence if other view can be taken even then the labour Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the order passed in domestic enquiry and lastly it was also submitted that since the employer have lost faith in the non-petitioner because of the grave misconduct of theft by the non-petitioner, therefore, the labour Court has committed illegality in passing the order of reinstatement and giving consequential benefits. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon various judgments of the Apex Court, viz.; 1997(6) SCC 159 , 1997(5) SCC 129 , 2000(7) SCC 517 , 2000(8) SCC 12 and the judgments of this Court delivered in case of Superintendent (Mines) Matoon Mines v. Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3659/2000, decided on 10th April, 2001) and the judgment delivered in case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Mohanlal & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3053/97, decided on 14th August, 2001). 6. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3659/2000, decided on 10th April, 2001) and the judgment delivered in case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Mohanlal & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3053/97, decided on 14th August, 2001). 6. The above allegation itself show that what has been alleged against the employee is that it was the day time of 12.30 P.M. when petitioner was working as Store Boy in the Store and was collecting the copper wire so that he may take it with him and in the same sequence it is mentioned that he was found sitting suspiciously near the place of theft. The quantity or weight of the wire is not mentioned in the statement of charge but it has come in evidence. According to witnesses of the petitioner it is 40 to 50 grams only which according to the non-petitioner employee is 10 to 15 grams only. The above allegations, if seen in the light of the alleged letter of pardon written by the non-petitioner employee then it reveals that this letter contains no date and the total contents of the letter are as under:- HkaMkj vf/kdkjh egksn; th jk-dks- fLifuax feYl~ xqykc iqjk fo"k; & ok;j lesVus dh ckcr pksjh vkxs ls eSa ,slk dke ugha d:xkA g- v'kksd 7. One cannot believe that such type of letter will satisfy the employer in a case of theft committed by the employee. It contains the subject which appears to have been clear indicative of the state of mind of the person who got it written from the employee. The subject says "theft with respect to folding the wire". What it conveys is not clear. Whether the offence is of collecting and folding the copper wire itself or it was the offence of theft for which the employee has said that he will not do such work in future. Admittedly, only allegation is that employee found merely lifting the small quantity of wire. This document if read alongwith statement of allegation against the non-petitioner employee, if is clear that there is no allegation of actual theft against the non-petitioner. The chargesheet itself show that it was the suspicion of the employer that he might have intended to commit any theft. This document if read alongwith statement of allegation against the non-petitioner employee, if is clear that there is no allegation of actual theft against the non-petitioner. The chargesheet itself show that it was the suspicion of the employer that he might have intended to commit any theft. From the entire evidence, it cannot be gathered what was the evidence on the basis of which a satisfaction could have been drawn with respect to the mental state of the non-petitioner. The labour Court rightly after considering the entire aspect of the matter held that there is no evidence with respect to any allegation against the non-petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Labour Court. 8. So far as judgments which were relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, it is suffice to say that in a case of misconduct the domestic enquiry order is required to be respected. No interference can be made by the Tribunal unless in the domestic enquiry the order passed by the Tribunal is found to be so perverse or falls within the permissible parameters permitting interference. Same time it is settled law that the employee can certainly demonstrate that this is a case of no evidence. Here, in this case, the Tribunal very rightly examined the evidence, which were relied upon by the petitioner to prove the charge against the non-petitioner employee, to find out whether from the evidence which has been relied upon by the petitioner, any iota of evidence is there or not to prove the allegations levelled against the non-petitioner. To find out whether there is any evidence or not, the Tribunal can certainly look into the evidence and cannot without looking into the evidence can say that there is evidence in support of the charge or there is no evidence in support of the charge but while doing so the Labour Court cannot interfere in order passed in domestic enquiry on the ground of sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence. Appreciation of evidence is something different than drawing a conclusion from the evidence. Here in this case what has been done by the learned Labour Court is that the Labour Court examined the evidence to find out whether the conclusion drawn in the domestic enquiry is based upon evidence or not. Therefore, there is no illegality in it. 9. Appreciation of evidence is something different than drawing a conclusion from the evidence. Here in this case what has been done by the learned Labour Court is that the Labour Court examined the evidence to find out whether the conclusion drawn in the domestic enquiry is based upon evidence or not. Therefore, there is no illegality in it. 9. The judgments which were relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner also certainly show that when any charge or allegation of serious nature like theft is proved or any misconduct is proved then no sympathy can be shown to such employees but in all the judgments it is said that when the allegation is proved, a suspicion cannot take place of the proof. Here in this case though it is a domestic enquiry and requirement of proof is not required of such standard as required in other criminal trials but as held above it is a case of no evidence of theft or attempt of theft, therefore, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner have no application to the facts of the present case. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have lost confidence in the non-petitioner therefore the order of reinstatement could not have been passed. It is true that in number of cases when it is found that in case employer loses the confidence in employee then the order of reinstatement may not be passed but at the same time this cannot be permitted to be a tool in the hand of employers so as to achieve the object which they fail to achieve by lodging absolutely false and non-existent departmental enquiry. Here in this case the entire things which are on record and has come in the impugned Award dated 7.11.2000 (Annex. 3) itself show that it was a high handed action of the employer against the non-petitioner employee and the learned Labour Court was right in setting aside the order dated 24th Dec., 1988 with all consequential benefits and it is not a case where reinstatement can be denied to the non-petitioner.I do not find any force in the present writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******