Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2032 (PNJ)

Jarnail Singh v. Presiding Officer Labour Court

2006-05-11

ARVIND KUMAR, J.S.NARANG

body2006
Judgment Arvind Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner is dissatisfied with the award made by the Labour Court dated 6.9.2005 (Annexure P-25) by virtue of which his claim has been dismissed. 2. According to the petitioner-workman he was initially appointed by respondent No. 2-management as a "Trainee" vide order dated 1.10.1979. He gained promotions from time to time. His services were confirmed as Skilled-B w.e.f. 1.10.1989. On 9.12.1993 he was suspended and his services were terminated on 17.1.1995. To challenge the action of the management of terminating his services, he raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, the Act). The matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The claim of the workman was resisted by the management by filing a detailed written statement. The stand was that on account of grave misconduct of using abusive, language and threatening the manager, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 9.12.1993. Despite various communications and publication, the workman did not join the enquiry proceedings, as such, proceedings were carried out ex parte, in a legal manner. The charges against the workman were held to be proved by the enquiry officer. Resultantly, in the interest of discipline in the organization, his services were terminated. 3. The Labour Court vide the impugned award held the termination of the services of the workman as fair and proper and dismissed his claim. Hence this writ petition. 4. The grievance of the petitioner-workman in the instant writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is that no legal and proper enquiry was held against him prior to terminating his services. The charge sheet was served upon him subsequently after the appointment of enquiry officer, as such, all the enquiry proceedings are liable to be vitiated. No opportunity of being heard was afforded to him. The Labour Court has erred in not applying the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the paper book so also the impugned award. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-workman has argued that the enquiry was conducted at the back of workman. It is thus, not fair and proper. The argument is devoid of any merit. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the paper book so also the impugned award. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-workman has argued that the enquiry was conducted at the back of workman. It is thus, not fair and proper. The argument is devoid of any merit. A bare perusal of the impugned award shows that the enquiry had been conducted ex parte against the workman on account of his own act and conduct. Admittedly, the workman, despite receipt of notices dated 16.2.1994, 8.3.1994, 18.3.1994 and 18.4.1994, did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Resultantly, a publication was also made in the newspaper "Punjabi Tribune". The workman, in his cross-examination, before the Labour Court, had admitted that he received the letters sent by the enquiry officer regarding initiation of enquiry against him. Despite due communications and publications when the workman failed to appear before the enquiry officer, the management was left with no other option but to proceed with the enquiry proceedings ex parte. The enquiry officer had acted in a cautious manner. It is an admitted fact that the enquiry officer not only sent the proceedings of the enquiry to the petitioner-workman but also made him aware of the next date of hearing. The communications, which the workman claims to have sent regarding supply of documents, were only to create hurdle. Otherwise, nobody was stopping him. He could very will join the enquiry proceedings. Once the workman himself opted to remain away from the enquiry proceedings, it does not lie in his mouth to say that the enquiry proceedings are liable to be vitiated. In this backdrop, the Labour Court has rightly observed that on the basis of said attitude of the management, the workman has no right to raise any objection with regard to the fairness or validity of the enquiry. 7. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Labour Court should have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act. There is no substance in this contention. When a proper enquiry has been held by the employer and finding of misconduct is supported from the evidence adduced in the said enquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the decision of the employer as an appellate authority. There is no substance in this contention. When a proper enquiry has been held by the employer and finding of misconduct is supported from the evidence adduced in the said enquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the decision of the employer as an appellate authority. Interference with decision is justified only when the enquiry is unfair or findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse or the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the proved charges as to shock the conscience of the Court. In the instant case, the petitioner-workman was collecting funds from the other employees of the management outside the premises of factory. Mr. S.S. Sodhi, working as Personal Manager with the management, in order to apprise the workman about a domestic enquiry pending against him, sent Kuldeep Singh to him. When Kuldeep Singh conveyed the message to the workman, he used abusive language against the management so also towards afore-stated S.S. Sodhi, which is reproduced by Labour Court in para No. 15 of its award. The said utterance reads as under: I do not bother for this Stephen Management (In Punjabi, he abused in the name of sister). I tell to you that you also conveyed my message to Sodhi (Dog) do whatever he can do. I will not appear in the enquiry and I dont bother the message and the Management (by calling abuses in the name of sister) 8. A perusal of the said words used by the petitioner-workman, we are of the opinion that the same cannot be tolerated by any civilised society. Use of such abusive language against a superior officer in the presence of his subordinates can be termed an indiscipline of highest degree. It does not call for lesser punishment. The appreciation letters Annexures P-1 to P-12 issued by the management to his work, in the past, do not come to his rescue. There is a reason for this. The petitioner-workman himself had suggested the management witness K.S. Bhinder in cross -examination that the petitioner-workman was also previously charge sheeted and remained under suspension. Therefore, his past merit do not dilute his above-said misconduct. He is not apologetic to his said act and conduct. There is a reason for this. The petitioner-workman himself had suggested the management witness K.S. Bhinder in cross -examination that the petitioner-workman was also previously charge sheeted and remained under suspension. Therefore, his past merit do not dilute his above-said misconduct. He is not apologetic to his said act and conduct. In the case of Orissa Cement Ltd v. Adikanda Sahu 1960 (1) L.L.J. 518 (S.C.), a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Three Judges, noticing the filthy language used by the workman therein held that: Because the words used by the respondent in abusing the labour officer not once but twice without any provocation are absolutely indecent and vulgar and in such case, he could not keep in its employment a person who was capable of such indecent conduct, it would be justified in dismissing him. 9. In the case of New Shorrock Mills v. Maheshbhai T. Rao 1997 (1) S.C.T.338 (S.C.), the Hon ble Supreme Court again considering the case of workman abusing his superior and threatening him held: The Labour Court, in the present case, having come to the conclusion that the finding of the departmental enquiry was legal and proper, the order of discharge was not by way of victimization and that the respondent workman had seriously misbehaved and was thus guilty of misconduct ought not to have interfered with the punishment which was awarded, in the manner it did. This is not a case where the court could come to the conclusion that the punishment awarded was shockingly disproportionate to the employees conduct and his past record.... 10. Keeping in view the facts of the case, the Labour Court has rightly and justifiably, on appreciation of facts and evidence, has come to the conclusion that the service of the workman has been rightly terminated. We do not find any infirmity with the impugned award made by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the present petition being without any merit is dismissed in limine.