Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 468 (RAJ)

Kishanlal v. Central Industrial Tribunal

2005-02-14

AJAY RASTOGI

body2005
Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-The petitioner workman, by this writ petition, has challenged the Award dated 16.05.1991 (Annex. 23),whereby the Central Industrial Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur, has upheld the order dated 11.06.1977 (Annex. 2) of the respondent No. 2-Khetri Copper Limited dismissing the workman from service, after holding domestic inquiry. 2. The workman was initially appointed as Miner in the services of respondent No. 2 on 23.08.1971 and was promoted to the post of Blaster on 03.02.1986 on probation for six months which ended on 02.08.1976. During probation period, his services were found to be un-satisfactory so he was reverted to the post of Miner vide order dated 16.08.1976. 3. On 27.09.1976, a charge-sheet (Annex. 1) was served upon the petitioner for committing acts of misconduct as defined in Clauses 39(2) (vi) & (viii) of Standing Orders for Khetri Copper Project under the control of National Mineral Development Corporation Limited duly certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for brevity "Standing Orders of respondent Company"). 4. As per charge-sheet (Annex. 1), allegations levelled against the petitioner was as under :-"that on 02.08.1976 in the second shift you were assigned to blast face 13-A slot raise (Stope 12) at 364 ML. While carrying out your work you have not taken the safety precautions as listed in Regulations 42 and 48 and 164(1) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations 1961 which resulted in a serious accident at 386 Ml. 13-A Slot Cross Out (Stope 12)." 5. After holding domestic inquiry, the workman was held guilty for charges levelled against him for misconduct under Clause 39(2) of Standing Orders of respondent Company, and consequently was punished with penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 11.06.1977 (Annex. 2). Sub-clauses (vi) & (viii) of Clause 39 (2) of Standing Orders are reproduced as under:-"39. Disciplinary action for misconduct.-(2) A workman may be suspended for a period not exceeding 4 days at a time, penalised by way of stoppage of increment, reduction to a lower grade, compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal from service if he is guilty of misconduct. The following acts and omissions shall be treated as misconduct. (vi) Habitual negligence or neglect of work. The following acts and omissions shall be treated as misconduct. (vi) Habitual negligence or neglect of work. (viii) Wilfuldisobedience of any order expressly given or any rule expressly framed for the purpose of securing safety, or wilful removal or disregard of , or interference with, any safety guard, or other device provided for securing safety of lives an property." 6. After almost eight years of order of dismissal from service, petitioner workman raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer and because of failure report furnished by him, a Reference was finally made by appropriate Government vide Notification dated 23.06.1987 for adjudication of following dispute:- "Whether the action of Management of Khetri Copper Complex Khetri Nagar in dismissing Shri Kishanlal Code No. 20204 from service w.e.f. 11.06.1977 is justified? If not, to what relief and from what date, the concerned workman is entitled to?" 7. During adjudication of the dispute under reference, the Tribunal examined material on record and finally upheld the order dated 11.06.1977 (Annex. 2) of Management of respondent Company whereby the workman was dismissed from service after holding domestic inquiry, and rejected the claim of petitioner-workman vide its Award dated 16.05.1991 (Annex. 23). Hence, this writ petition. 8. Shri Arun Sharma, Counsel for the workman has urged that the workman was holding the post of Blaster form 03.02.1976 and for the misconduct alleged to have been committed by him on 02.08.1976, as a measure of penalty, he was reverted to the post of Miner vide order dated 16.08.1976, as such the decision taken by respondent Company of dismissing the workman from service, for the same delinquency, was not justifiable, and two punishments could not have been inflicted upon him for one incident of alleged misconduct, when that too was not wilful act on his part. 9. Further objection raised by the workman is that other workman who were similarly situated, have committed serious misconduct, for which sufficient material was submitted on record but still they were punished with minor penalty of stoppage of increment, whereas in case of present workman, despite similarity in nature of misconduct, respondent Company took the decision of major penalty of dismissal from service and such action of the respondent Company is discriminatory in nature. 10. 10. Next submission made is that the Tribunal was under an obligation to independently examine material on record under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as to whether punishment inflicted upon workman is adequate of it requires interference, but the Tribunal failed to consider adequacy of punishment. 11. Per contra, Shri Manoj Sharma, Counsel for respondent Company submitted that as the workman was on probation of six months on the post of Blaster, during probation his services were found to be unsatisfactory, consequently, he was reverted to the post of Miner from the post of Blaster, which was not based for the incident of misconduct committed by petitioner workman on 02.08.1976. 12. As regards other workman referred to by petitioner workman in statement of his claim, so also as to the quantum of their punishments, Shri Manoj Sharma for respondent Company submitted that the Tribunal examined in details facts of those workmen on the material on record, and has recorded its finding holding that nature of delinquency and misconduct alleged to have been committed by co-workmen was distinct and different than present workman, inasmuch as the Management of respondent Company examined their misconduct independently, and apart from it, the charge levelled against present workman cannot be compared with that of those workmen, because it has to be examined on the basis of material which was made available on record, looking to the gravity of the charge examined by the authority. 13. So far as Section 11-A of the Act is concerned, Shri Manoj Sharma contended that it is related to the satisfaction of the Tribunal in the facts of a particular case that order of discharge or dismissal is in any manner justified or not, the powers can be exercised for adequacy of punishment under Section 11-A of the Act, but if the Tribunal is satisfied with the punishment inflicted upon workman, in such circumstances, Section 11-A is not required to be invoked; apart from it is in the present case, the Tribunal has considered even adequacy of punishment and recorded its finding holding the punishment of dismissal from service as adequate looking to the nature of grave misconduct allegedly committed by petitioner workman. 14. I have considered submissions of both the parties and also perused the material on record. 15. 14. I have considered submissions of both the parties and also perused the material on record. 15. The Tribunal has examined the procedure adopted by the respondent Company in holding the inquiry and found that there was sufficient material on record to uphold the guilt and misconduct alleged and duly found proved against the workman in domestic inquiry by respondent Company, and after scrutiny of material on record, upheld the decision of respondent Company inflicting penalty of dismissal from service upon the workman vide order dated 11.06.1977 (Annex. 2). Even otherwise it is a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal after appreciating the material made available on record and I find no infirmity so far as the finding of guilt recorded by the Tribunal. 16. So far as submission made with regard to his reversion from the post of Blaster to that of Miner, is concerned, the Tribunal has considered that his reversion from the post of Blaster was not by way of penalty but as the workman did not work to utmost satisfaction of the Management during probation period, he was reverted to the post of Miner, inasmuch as it was never related to the incident of misconduct alleged to have been committed by him on 02.08.1976, which was examined after serving charge-sheet (Annex. 1) upon him on 27.09.1976. No error in my view has been committed by the Tribunal in recording finding to this effect. 17. So far as submission as to the act of misconduct committed by co-workmen, who were inflicted with minor penalty, the Tribunal examined the same and recorded finding of fact that for separate misconducts committed for separate incidents, looking to the nature of guilt, for which adequate punishment has been inflicted. The workman himself failed to show nature of charge with guilt found proved and that apart punishment inflicted upon those co-workmen. From the record, I find no material to uphold the plea of petitioner so as to disturb the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. 18. The workman himself failed to show nature of charge with guilt found proved and that apart punishment inflicted upon those co-workmen. From the record, I find no material to uphold the plea of petitioner so as to disturb the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. 18. So far as scope of Section 11-A of the Act is concerned, I find material on record that the Tribunal has taken note of the final punishment inflicted upon the petitioner and was satisfied as to the nature and gravity of misconduct alleged and which finally stood proved against him, therefore, no interference is called for keeping in view nature of misconduct of petitioner workman so also as to adequacy of penalty inflicted upon him. Once the Tribunal was satisfied with the nature of punishment inflicted upon the petitioner, it was not required for the Tribunal to still independently examine under Section 11-A of the Act and record its finding. It is required only in cases, where the Tribunal is not satisfied with the punishment, despite the charge finally stood proved against the workman so as to examine adequacy of punishment after invoking powers under Section 11-A of the Act. No other submission was made. 19. For aforesaid reasons I find no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.