Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 608 (RAJ)

Suraj Prakash v. Judge, Labour Court, Kota

2007-03-19

R.M.LODHA, R.S.CHAUHAN

body2007
Honble LODHA, J.–The unsuccessful workman is in appeal aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge passed on November 20, 1995 dismissing his writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 6th of November, 1992 passed by the Labour Court, Kota. (2). For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the appellant and the respondent No.2 as "workman" and "employer" respectively. On 19th September, 1986, the workman in the night at about 11.05 p.m. after working in the shift, was coming out of the factory. At that time, he initially declined to give search to the watchman. That created some suspicion in the mind of watchman. The workman was searched and from his shoes, two copper pieces weighing about 500 grams were found. The First Information Report relating to this incident was lodged by the employer through his Security Officer on 19th September, 1986 itself at Udyog Nagar, Police Station. The workman was immediately suspended and served with a charge-sheet on 20th September, 1986. The workman responded to the charge-sheet by filing his reply on 29th September, 1986. He denied the charge levelled against him. The discipline enquiry as well as the criminal case continued simultaneously. The Judicial Magistrate (North), Kota by his judgment dated 31st January, 1992 gave the workman benefit of doubt and acquitted him of the offence punishable under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code. On the other hand, in the departmental enquiry, the charges were found proved by the Enquiry Officer. Based on the enquiry report, by the order dated 1st December, 1986, the workman was dismissed from service. The workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court, Kota on 13th September, 1988. Before the Labour Court, Kota, the fairness of the departmental enquiry was put in issue by the workman. The Labour Court, Kota vide its order dated 22nd October, 1990 accepted the objection of the workman and held that the departmental enquiry was not fair. The Labour Court gave an opportunity to the employer to prove the misconduct and, accordingly, the employer as well as the workman led their evidence in this regard. (3). At the time of hearing, the workman argued before the Labour Court that in the criminal case, he has already been acquitted and, therefore, the dismissal order must be declared bad in law. (3). At the time of hearing, the workman argued before the Labour Court that in the criminal case, he has already been acquitted and, therefore, the dismissal order must be declared bad in law. The Labour Court by its award dated 6th November, 1993 held that the dismissal of the workman by the employer was legal and valid and the workman was not entitled to any relief. (4). The award dated 6th of November, 1993 was challenged by the workman in a writ petition before this Court. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition summarily at the motion hearing stage on November 20, 1995 giving rise to the present appeal. (5). The counsel for the workman heavily relied upon the two judgments of the Supreme Court viz., (1) Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another (1999) 3 SCC 679 and (ii) G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat and Another 2006(4) Supreme 740 = (RLW 2006(4) (SC) 2480) and submitted that the facts, the evidence in the departmental as well as the criminal proceedings being exactly same, upon acquittal of the workman by the Criminal Court, in the departmental proceedings, the workman was entitled to exoneration. He submitted that in a case where the facts and evidence in departmental as well as in criminal proceedings were same without there being any difference whatsoever, the distinction which is usually drawn between the departmental and the criminal proceedings on the basis of approach in burden of proof would not be attracted. (6). On the other hand, the counsel for the employer supported the award passed by the Labour Court as well as the order of the Single Judge and submitted that the two judgments of the Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony and G.M. Tank (supra) relied upon by the workman have no application to the facts of the present case. The counsel for the employer submitted that the workman was given benefit of doubt by the Criminal Court and, therefore, his acquittal was not clean and honourable. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishnakali Tea Estate vs. Akhil Bharatiya Cham Mazdoor Sangh and Another (2004) 8 SCC 200 and submitted that the Labour Court was not bound by the finding of the Criminal Court, more so when the workman has been given benefit of doubt. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishnakali Tea Estate vs. Akhil Bharatiya Cham Mazdoor Sangh and Another (2004) 8 SCC 200 and submitted that the Labour Court was not bound by the finding of the Criminal Court, more so when the workman has been given benefit of doubt. The counsel for the employer brought to our notice the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Uttaranchal Road Transport Corpn. vs. Mansaram Nainwal (2006) 6 SCC 366 . (7). The question that the Supreme Court was concerned in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony was whether the acquittal coupled with other circumstances, specially ex parte proceedings of the case, will have the effect of vitiating the departmental proceedings or the order of dismissal passed against the delinquent? (8). The Supreme Court noticed that the proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. In the departmental proceedings, where a charge relating to misconduct is being investigated, the factors operating in the mind of the disciplinary authority may be many such as enforcement of discipline or to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent or the other staff, the standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different than that required in a criminal case. While in the departmental proceedings the standard of proof is one of preponderance of the probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court observed that the little exception may be where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common without there being a variance. The Supreme Court considered its previous decision in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. vs. Kushal Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 805; Tata Oil Mill Co. Ltd. vs. Workman, AIR 1965 SC 155 ; Jang Bahadur Singh vs. Baij Nath Tiwari, AIR 1969 SC 30 ; Kusheshwar Dubey vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (1988) 4 SCC 319 ; Nelson Motis vs. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1981 ; State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena, AIR 1997 SC 13 and Depot Manager, A.P. S.R.T.C. vs. Mohd. Ltd. vs. Workman, AIR 1965 SC 155 ; Jang Bahadur Singh vs. Baij Nath Tiwari, AIR 1969 SC 30 ; Kusheshwar Dubey vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (1988) 4 SCC 319 ; Nelson Motis vs. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1981 ; State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena, AIR 1997 SC 13 and Depot Manager, A.P. S.R.T.C. vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, AIR 1997 SC 2232 and culled out the legal position in paragraph 22 of the report that reads as under:- "The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest. (9). In the case of Krishnakali Tea State (supra), three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court adverted to Capt. (9). In the case of Krishnakali Tea State (supra), three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court adverted to Capt. M. Paul Anthony and held that the said decision was not applicable as the evidence led by the Management was different from that led by the prosecution in the criminal case and, therefore, it was open to the Labour Court to have come to an independent conclusion dehors the finding of the criminal Court. The three judge bench reiterated the legal principles exposited in B.K. Meena that the approach in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different. (10). In the case of Uttaranchal Road Transport Corpn., the Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the High Court where Capt. M. Paul Anthony was applied without discussing the factual aspects. (11). In the case of G.M. Tank, the Supreme Court held that in the facts and circumstances obtaining therein, Capt. M. Paul Anthony was applicable and, accordingly, set aside the order of the dismissal. It is important to advert to the observation made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 29 of the report, which reads thus: "The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are distinguishable on the facts and on law. In this case, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a Departmental case against the appellant and the charge before the Criminal court are one and the same. It is true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same. In other words, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same. In the present case, criminal case departmental proceedings have already noticed or granted on the same set of facts namely, raid conducted at the appellants residence recovery of articles therefrom. The Investigation Officer, Mr. V.B. Raval and other departmental witnesses were only witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer who by relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The Investigation Officer, Mr. V.B. Raval and other departmental witnesses were only witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer who by relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal Court on the examination came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by his judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed the judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial and on hot contest. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand." (12). The legal position culled out by the Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony admits of no ambiguity or doubt. The Courts have time and again held and reiterated that departmental proceedings and the proceedings in the criminal operate in a different field. The approach and the objective in the two proceedings is entirely distinct and different, the standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry in the departmental proceedings and the criminal trial are also distinct. The approach and the objective of the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings being different altogether, in Krishnakali Tea Estate, the Apex Court held that the Labour Court is not bound by the finding of the Criminal Court. (13). When we turn to the present case, it may be noticed immediately that there is nothing on record to indicate that the evidence in the criminal case and the evidence before the Labour Court was exactly the same. Only on the basis of the fact that in the criminal case, the witnesses namely Murlilal, Dhuleshwar Singh, Mahendra Kumar Jain and Bhimsain Choudhary were produced, who were also examined by the Management before the Labour Court for proof of misconduct, it was urged that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case had same set of evidence. We are afraid by this process of reasoning, it cannot be said that evidence in both the proceedings was without any variance. We are afraid by this process of reasoning, it cannot be said that evidence in both the proceedings was without any variance. From the judgment of the Criminal Court, it transpires that the benefit of doubt was given to the appellant, who was accused of an offence under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code. The Labour Court adverted to this aspect in its award and did not find himself persuaded by the order of acquittal. No fault can be found in the approach of the Labour Court as it was open to it to independently examine the evidence and the material placed before him to find out whether misconduct of the workman was established or not. Having independently examined the evidence and material placed before him on the touch-stone of preponderance of probabilities, it cannot be said that the Labour Court erred in law in giving the finding different from that of the Criminal Court. (14). In our considered view in the facts and circumstances of the case, the two judgments of the Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony and G.M. Tank do not help the appellant. Moreover, in the present case, the Management set up the case of loss of confidence against the appellant-delinquent as he was caught red handed having lifted two copper pieces unauthorised and illegally from the work place. The Labour Court held that in the facts and circumstances, the employer has lost confidence in the workman. (15). The dismissal of the writ petition, therefore, by the Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from any illegality justifying interference in the appeal. Resultantly the special appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.