Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 368 (UTT)

DABUR INDIA LTD. v. RASPINDER SINGH

2015-07-23

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed assailing the judgment and award dated 26.12.2012, passed by Labour Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar whereby dismissal of the respondent/workman dated 07.03.2006 was held to be illegal and Respondent/workman was directed to be reinstated alongwith entire back-wages and all consequential reliefs. Learned Labour Court has further directed to pay Rs. 2000/- towards cost and legal expenses to the respondent/workman. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that respondent/workman was working as Junior Mechanic, however, was promoted as Mechanic (Grade-VIII), w.e.f. 18.04.2005. On 25.09.2005, respondent/workman was caught carrying with him five bottles of Amla Oil and one bottle of 200 m.l. Laal Tel stolen from the factory; theft was informed telephonically to the Factory Manager, Mr. Uttam Singh Matela on 25.09.2005 itself; respondent/workman was placed under suspension on 26.09.2005 for the alleged theft; respondent /workman came to the factory on 28.09.2005 and confessed his guilt in his own handwriting and tendered his apology saying that he would not repeat the same offence in future; respondent/workman was charge-sheeted on 15.10.2005, calling him to furnish his explanation to the charges; respondent/workman submitted his reply to the charges on 05.11.2005; after receiving the report of the Inquiry Officer, show cause notice was issued to the respondent/workman on 25.01.2006, as to why, he should not be dismissed from the services and thereafter, order was passed on 07.03.2006, dismissing the workman/respondent from the services; on the request of workman/respondent, reference was made by the Labour Court, as to whether dismissal of the workman vide order dated 07.03.2006 was valid and justified and if not, what relief workman is entitled for; vide impugned award dated 26.12.2012, learned Labour Court was pleased to hold that dismissal of the workman vide order dated 07.03.2006 was not valid and justified and was further pleased to direct reinstatement of the workman alongwith all consequential benefits and backwages. Learned Labour Court was further pleased to direct the employer to pay Rs. 2000/- towards cost and legal expenses to the workman/respondent. Feeling aggrieved, employer/petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. I have heard Mr. S. N. Babulkar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ravi Babuldar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aditya Kumar Arya, learned counsel for the respondent and have carefully perused the record. 4. Feeling aggrieved, employer/petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. I have heard Mr. S. N. Babulkar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ravi Babuldar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aditya Kumar Arya, learned counsel for the respondent and have carefully perused the record. 4. There is no dispute that the workman himself in his own handwriting has confessed his guilt and tendered his apology with the undertaking that in future, he would not repeat the same offence. Confession is available on record being Paper No. 43 of the paper book. 5. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the employer/petitioner, stated that even if, for the sake of argument, it is presumed that all the relevant witnesses i.e. Ms. Shruti Vohra, who was on duty as Manager at the time of incident, and the security personnel, who had caught the workman carrying stolen items with him were not produced in the witness box and the Inquiry Officer, who has conducted the preliminary inquiry, failed to turn up for the cross examination, but the fact remains that, the workman himself has confessed his guilt. Therefore, it is for the workman to demonstrate as to why confession may not be read against him. 6. On the other hand, Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/workman, has vehemently contended that first of all, confession does not contain the date when the same was made; secondly, confession was made by the workman/respondent under coercion and duress of the managerial staff of the employer, therefore, it was not a willful confession, consequently, the same may not be relied upon. 7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shyam Lal, reported in 2004 (102) FLR Page 1021, in paragraph No. 7 has held as under:- “………It is a fairly settled position in law that admission is the best piece of evidence against the person making the admission. It is, however, open to the person making the admission to show why the admission is not to be acted upon.” 8. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Swadesh Pal Baliyan Vs. Air Force Commanding-In-Chief and another, reported in 2004 (103) FLR 1029 again has taken a view that admission is the best evidence which can be read and relied upon against the person making confession. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Swadesh Pal Baliyan Vs. Air Force Commanding-In-Chief and another, reported in 2004 (103) FLR 1029 again has taken a view that admission is the best evidence which can be read and relied upon against the person making confession. 9. In view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, now the settled position of law, which has emerged, is that admission/ confession is the best evidence against the person making admission/confession and it is for the person, who has made the confession to explain as to why he has made the admission/confession and as to whether admission was made by him under duress and coercion. 10. In the present case, workman/respondent has not produced any witness to say that he has made confession under duress/coercion. Bald allegation that confession was made by him under duress or coercion is not sufficient to ignore the confession made by the respondent/workman. 11. Since the guilt of the workman is proved, in the light of the confession made by him, therefore, non-production of the other witnesses before the Labour court by the employer is immaterial. 12. In my considered opinion, theft is a serious offence. Theft is otherwise a breach of confidence reposed by the employer on the employee. The moment trust is broken employer has every right to show the door to the employee. 13. There is another aspect of the matter that learned Labour Court should not lightly interfere in the findings of fact recorded during the disciplinary enquiry unless, of course, same is found to be perverse or without jurisdiction or manifest error of law is noticed by the Court. 14. In view of the above, I find that the judgment passed by the learned Labour Court does not sustain in the eyes of law. In the result, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned judgment and award dated 26.12.2012 is hereby quashed and dismissal order dated 07.03.2006 is hereby restored. No order as to costs.