Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 2 (JHR)

Kedar Nath Jha v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court

2004-01-06

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J, 1. The Government of Bihar vide notification dated 18.2.1986 referred the Industrial Dispute between the Management of TELCO Limited, Jamshed-pur (Hereinafter referred as the "Company") and workman namely Kedar Nath Jha (Hereinafter referred as the "workman") for adjudicating the following disputes:--- "Whether the termination of services of Sri Kedar Nath Jha, by which the Management is proper and justified? if not, whether he is entitled to reinstatement or any other relief?" 2. The reference was answered by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Jam-shedpur, by award dated 18.11.1995 which is under challenge in this writ application. 3. By the impugned award the learned Labour Court held that from the evidence available on record the Management failed to show that Manager (Finance) had power to issue charge sheet and to constitute the domestic enquiry and therefore, the charge sheet issued and domestic enquiry committee constituted by the Manager (Finance) was without any authority and as such the entire disciplinary proceeding was bad in law and vitiated. Consequently it was held that the order of dismissal passed against the workman was wrong but the Labour Court refused to re-instate the workman on the ground that the work man was working in the Accounts Department of the company which was a post of trust and confidence and therefore, considering the nature of proved charges against the workman instead of reinstatement, compensation equivalent to 3.33 years salary on the basis of last pay and allowance drawn by him was awarded. 4. The case of the company is that the concerned workman made payment of L.T.A. against four vouchers which contained signature of recipient in Hindi totaling 2015/-. Those vouchers signed by Shri Nair were handed over to the concerned workman. The workman reported to Shri Nair on 25.5.1982 that the above four vouchers were lost from his custody and therefore, another set of four vouchers had to be prepared and those were handed over again to the workman for needful. Payment against those second set duplicate vouchers were made on 25.5.1982 and 29.5.1982. Further case of the company is that during the course of the checking of those vouchers for the year 1981-82 it was detected that payments has already been made against those vouchers for which the concerned workman had reported to be lost. Payment against those second set duplicate vouchers were made on 25.5.1982 and 29.5.1982. Further case of the company is that during the course of the checking of those vouchers for the year 1981-82 it was detected that payments has already been made against those vouchers for which the concerned workman had reported to be lost. According to the company, it was the duty of the concerned workman to pay the amount of L.T.A. Vouchers to the concerned employees after verification of their gate pass, name and ticket number etc. The concerned workman was looking after the job of L.T.A. for Auto Division payment. It was also detected that Smt. Sombari, Bhamini and Lakni had received L.T.A. payment on 26.6.1982 itself and they had put their thumb impression and vouchers in question contained signature in Hindi were referred to Hand Writing Experts, West Bengal who gave his opinion that signature on vouchers were slow, conscious, distorted. However, it was alleged that the concerned workman had falsely reported on 25.6.1982 that the said four vouchers were lost and as a matter of fact he retained those vouchers with him and managed to draw cash against those vouchers in September and October 1982 after fully knowing that payment of L.T.A. of four employees have already been made in June 1982. Therefore, the act and conduct of the concerned workman constituted misconducts of theft, fraud and dishonest in connection with the Companys business and property. 5. On being charge sheeted by the Company, the workman submitted his explanation stating inter alia that he was absent from his duty on 25.6.1982 and he did not report the loss of those vouchers to Sri Nair and he denied to have forged the signatures of recipients on the alleged vouchers. Not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the concerned workman, an enquiry was held in which the workman participated through out and in the said enquiry the workman was found to be guilty of the charges levelled against him. Considering the gravity of the misconduct the Management lost his confidence and ordered him to be dismissed. 6. From the impugned award it appears that the learned Labour Court formulated three points for determination :-- (i) Whether the charges of misconduct as levelled against the workman had been established ? Considering the gravity of the misconduct the Management lost his confidence and ordered him to be dismissed. 6. From the impugned award it appears that the learned Labour Court formulated three points for determination :-- (i) Whether the charges of misconduct as levelled against the workman had been established ? (ii) Whether the persons who issued charge sheet, appointed Enquity Officer, passed the order of termination of the workers were competent to do so ? (iii) Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement of any other relief ? 7. So far as the first point is concerned, as to whether the Charges of misconduct against the workman was established or not. I find that the learned Labour Court after a detailed discussion of the evidence on record has come to a finding that the concerned workman made payment to take persons against four original vouchers for his personal gain, which he had reported on 25.6.1982 as having been lost and therefore, the charges of misconduct against the concerned workman was found to be established. 8. So far as the second point formulated by the Labour Court regarding as to whether the persons who issued the charge sheet, appointed enquiry officer and passed the order of termination of the workman were competent to do so or not, it appears from the award that the Labour Court noticed the fact that the Ext. M/l i.e. charge sheet was issued and domestic enquiry was constituted by the Manager (Finance), who was not competent to exercise disciplinary power against the workman under the Certified Standing Order of the Company. The powers to pass an order of termination and lesser punishment instead of termination, vested with the company and not in any of its other authorities and since the said power was not delegated to the Manager (Finance) and therefore, the learned Labour Court held that charge sheet issued and constitution of the domestic enquiry by the Manager (Finance) was without any authority and as such the entire proceeding was vitiated. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed illegality in not directing the reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages, on the ground that the Management lost confidence on him. It is also submitted that the management did not led any evidence with regard to loss of confidence against the concerned workman. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed illegality in not directing the reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages, on the ground that the Management lost confidence on him. It is also submitted that the management did not led any evidence with regard to loss of confidence against the concerned workman. It is further submitted that the finding of the learned Labour Court with regard to the fact that the concerned workman had committed misconduct was wrong as the management failed to substantiate charge against the concerned workman. Lastly it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the punishment was so harsh and was suggestive of victimization. 10. Mr. V.P. Singh learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the learned Labour Court on due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the material on records has clearly found the concerned workman to be guilty of misconduct and the said finding of facts arrived at by the Labour Court should not be disturbed by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Mr. Singh next submitted that the Manager (Finance) who Issued the charge sheet and constituted the domestic enquiry was fully competent to do so. But in my view this finding of the learned Labour Court cannot be challenged in the present writ application as the Management of the company did not chose to challenge the said finding of the Labour Court before any forum and therefore in the present writ application the said finding of the Labour Court cannot be allowed to be challenged at the instance of the Management. So far as the finding with regard to misconduct against the petitioner is concerned, I find from the impugned award that the learned Labour Court has fully discussed the materials on record and evidence both oral and documentary and then has come to definite findings on fact, which in my opinion, in view of the series of the decision of the Supreme Court in this regard cannot be interfered with exercise of writ jurisdiction. A reference in this connection may be made to the decision in the case of Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrish-nan and Ors. reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 11. So far as the question of reinstatement with full back wages is concerned. A reference in this connection may be made to the decision in the case of Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrish-nan and Ors. reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 11. So far as the question of reinstatement with full back wages is concerned. I find that the learned Labour Court was right in holding that since the charge of misconduct has been proved against the concerned workman and because of fact that the management had lost confidence on him as he was holding the post of trust and confidence and therefore. !t was rightly ordered the petitioner be paid compensation in lieu of reinstatement. I do not find any Illegality in the award on that score. 12. In view my above discussions and finds I hold that the impugned award which is based on findings on fact, does not re quire any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ Jurisdiction. Consequently this writ application is dismissed. No cost.