The Concerned Workman R.K. Singh v. The Management of M/s Tata Steel Ltd. through Mrs. Meena Lall, its

“5. Considering the materials available on the record I find from Charge sheet, Ext. M that there is a allegation against the workman that at the relevant time workman had demanded gate pass from Sri Chakarvorty who explained his inability at which workman abused and assaulted Mr. Chakarvorty. In reply workman has stated that at the relevant time he had demanded gate pass from Mr. Chakarvorty at 2 L.P.A. No. 609 of 2019 which Mr. Chakarvorty abused and assaulted him causing him injury and during enquiry Mr. Chakarvorty gave his statement before E.O. and supported the case of the management. I also find that the workman has also given his statement before the E.O. and supported his case. Ext. M/Ex-1 series it appears that Mr. Chakarvorty had made complaint to his department just after occurrence, and on the same day he was examined by the Dr. on duty in Tisco Ltd; and Dr. has found contusion on LW bridge of nose but he was not admitted in the hospital considering the injury sustained by Mr. B. Chakarvorty, MEX-2 is the report of G.M. (medical services), it shows that Mr. Singh had made complaint of pain in neck and inability to work on 21.09.2000 at noon, and thereafter he was referred to the Dr. on duty in the emergency, TMH, JSR where he was admitted for treatment, and on the next day Mr. Singh was discharged, and Dr. Did not find any injury on his person of Mr. Singh. Ext. C.S.E. -3 is the written complaint of Mr. Singh dated 21.9.2000 to the Dy. Manager of his section head. Ext. CSE-5 is the FIR lodged by Mr. Singh on 21.9.2000, and it was recorded by o/c T.O.P. in TMH Ward No. 2-B, bed No. 24 and he has given the information about the occurrence on which basis a criminal case is pending in Civil Court, Jamshedpur. Ext. CSE-7 is the prescription of Dr. with regard to the treatment of Mr. Singh in TMH JSR, and Dr. has found injury on his neck and face caused by hard blunt object, and the opinion was kept reserved. Ext. CSE-8 is the discharged slip issued by TMH, and it shows that Dr. has found contusion on neck and face following assault and workman was advised to take rest for 4 days, and this hospital is being run by the company itself, and the Dr. has found workman fit for duty on 28.9.2000. In this way it is apparent that at the relevant time hot exchange and scuffle took place between Mr. B. Chakarvorty and the concerned workman, and both have sustained injury on their person, and Mr. Singh has sustained more serious injury for which Dr. has admitted him in the hospital and was discharged on the next day and he found him unfit for 4 days but enquiry proceeding and report indicate that no chargesheet was served to Mr. Chakarvorty and no any action was taken against him by the management, and E.O. did not consider the injury report of Mr. Singh granted by the TMH, JSR and has found no any overtact committed by Mr. Chakarvorty to the concerned workman. Under the circumstances I am of the view that the E.O. has concluded the enquiry proceeding in violation of principles of natural justice as he has not enquired into the total facts of the occurrence occurred at the relevant time. And thus I find that conclusion of the enquiry is based on surmises and conjuncture disclosing non- application of its mind, and the conclusion is wholly perverse and not sustainable. 6. Having regard the above facts and materials available on the record, I find that domestic enquiry is not fair, proper and not as per the principles of natural justice. The competency and propriety of the authority shall be considered at the time of final hearing. The parties are directed to adduce evidence on the merit of the case, if any. Put on 14.6.2012 for the evidence of the management.”

4. W.P.(L) No. 4806 of 2012 was filed by the Management of M/s. Tata Steel Limited to challenge the aforesaid findings recorded by the Labour Court that the Management has failed to prove the charge against the delinquent workman and it was a case of victimization; the writ petition has been allowed.

5. At the outset, we may indicate that the aforesaid findings recorded by the Labour Court cannot be countenance in law in as much as the Labour Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction and delved into the merits of the case to record the finding that the conclusions in the enquiry report are based on surmises and 3 L.P.A. No. 609 of 2019 conjunctures and does not disclose application of mind on the part of the enquiry officer. At the preliminary stage, the Labour Court’s jurisdiction is limited to see whether the domestic enquiry against the delinquent workman was conducted following the rules of natural justice and if he was offered reasonable opportunity to defend himself. On this issue, we are in agreement with the writ Court that the order dated 23.05.2012 is unsustainable in law and; consequently, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed to the aforesaid extent.

6. W.P.(L) No. 5230 of 2015 has been filed by M/s Tata Steel Ltd. to challenge the award dated 30th May 2015.

7. By virtue of the order dated 21st February 2003 of the Government of Jharkhand issued in exercise of the powers under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the following reference was made to the Labour Court at Jamshedpur: “Whether the dismissal of Sri R. K. Singh, Ex. P. No. 128663 the workman of M/s. Tisco Ltd, Jamshedpur by the management is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?”

8. During the trial, three witnesses were produced before the Labour Court by the workman who examined himself as WW3 in support of his case. WW1 has stated that on 21st September 2000, he was deployed in A-shift duty from 06:00 AM to 02:00 PM and on that day while returning from L.D. Canteen after taking tea around 08:45 AM he saw Mr. B. Chakraborty running from LCP Mechanical Office and hurling abuses at Mr. R. K. Singh. This witness has further stated that Mr. B. Chakraborty caught hold of R. K. Singh and pushed him due to which he fell on the ground and started hitting him. WW2 has also stated about Mr. B. Chakraborty hurling abuses and delivering fist blows at Mr. R. K. Singh. As WW3, the delinquent workman stated that at about 09:00 AM on 21st September 2000 he was required to appear in the domestic enquiry and for that purpose he requested Mr. B. Chakraborty to issue a gate pass to which he refused and uttered nonsense. He has further stated that Mr. B. Chakraborty caught hold of his collar and started abusing him and assaulted him.

9. On behalf of the workman, the following documents were produced in evidence: Ext.-W:- Statement of B. Chakraborty recorded in the course of domestic enquiry. Ext.-W/1: - Permit to leave the works while on duty. Ext.-W/2: - Photo copy of charge sheet dated 30.06.2000 with reply. Ext.-W/3: - C.S.E.-2 of domestic enquiry (suggestions of workman). Ext.-W/4: - C.S.E.-2 of domestic enquiry (suggestions of workman). Ext.-W/5: - Photo copy of application dated 21.09.2000 of R. K. Singh submitted to Deputy Manager N.C.P. mechanical (C.S.E.-3 of domestic enquiry). 4 L.P.A. No. 609 of 2019 Ext.-W/6: - Photo copy of letter addressed to Sr. Divisional Manager by R. K. Singh. (C.W.E.-4 of domestic enquiry) Ext.-W/7: - Permit to leave the works on duty dated 07.08.2000. Ext.-W/8: - Prescription of R.K. Singh. Ext.-W/9: - Discharge slip dated 22.09.2000 issued by Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur. Ext.-W/10: - Photo copy of letter dated 12.10.2000 of AGM (personnel) of Tata Steel addressed to the General Secretary Tata worker Union, Jamshedpur. Ext.-W/11: - Photo Copy of application dated 28.08.2000 of R. K. Singh addressed to General Manager works. Ext.-W/12: - Salary slip of R. K. Singh of the month of July, 2000. Ext.-W/13: - Certified copy of Judgment dated 31.03.2009 passed by Sri Brajkishor Pandey, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamshedpur in G. R. No. – 1535/2000.

10. Mr. B. Chakraborty tendered evidence as MW1 to support the charge against the delinquent workman and to corroborate his version of the incident MW2- Rajeev and MW3- B. Sen have tendered evidence to the effect that on 21st September 2000, Mr. B. Chakraborty was deployed in A-shift duty and the delinquent workman assaulted him on account of which he suffered bleeding nose injury. As MW1, Mr. B. Chakraborty stated that after he had completed job distribution the delinquent workman came to him and asked for a gate pass for going outside the factory premises to which he declined stating that the work has already been distributed and assigned and he was required to attend the domestic enquiry in general shift. The gate pass vide Exhibit M/2 was produced on behalf of the Management to demonstrate that the defence set up by the delinquent workman that Mr. B. Chakraborty refused to issue a gate pass is false.

11. On behalf of the Management, the following documents have been laid in evidence: Ext.-M: Complaint of B. Chakraborty dated 21.09.2000 Ext. M/1: Photo copy of medical prescription of B. Chakraborty Ext. M/2 : Statement of Rajeev Ext. M/3 : Charge sheet dated 06.10.2000 with reply Ext. M/4 : Works standing orders

12. On the basis of the materials laid before him, the Presiding Officer of the labour Court at Jamshedpur has held as under: “35. Having considering the materials and evidence available on record, I find from the charge sheet along with reply dated 21.09.2000 Ext.- M/3 that there is a allegation against the workman that at the relevant time workman had demanded gate pass to attend the enquiry proceeding from Mr. B. Chakraborty who explained his inability on which the workman abused and assaulted Mr. Chakraborty. In the reply the workman has stated that at the relevant time he had demanded gate pass from Mr. Chakraborty to participate in enquiry and to bring union representative and Mr. Chakraborty refused to issue gate pass and when the workman was going to complain Mr. Chakraborty abused and assaulted him. According management’s case Mr. B. Chakraborty was unable to issue gate pass saying that if he had an enquiry and as his job was pending therefore he should approached the Foreman for the gate pass. But the Ext.- W/1 goes to show that said gate pass has 5 L.P.A. No. 609 of 2019 been issued by Mr. B. Chakraborty who has also admitted in his evidence. It means he was able to issue gate pass. Admittedly an enquiry was pending in respect of the charge sheet dated 30.06.2000 vide office order No. REF/M1250/2000 dated 08.07.2000 and date was fixed on 21.09.2000. It is evident that the workman approached Mr. Chakraborty twice for issuance of gate pass but he refused to issue gate pass. It is also evident that the workman wanted to participate in the said enquiry and to bring Sri. B. K. Dinda the Union Representative but Mr. Chakraborty uttered nonsense and refused to issue gate pass, then workman was going to complain to senior officer Mr. B. R. Bronia, Mr. Chakraborty caught hold him and assaulted to which he sustained injuries on his person. It appears that Mr. B. Chakraborty who got annoyed as workman was going to complain against him to senior officer initiated the fighting. The medical prescription of Mr. Chakraborty Ext.- M/1 goes to show that Doctor has found only one injury i.e. contusion on LW bridge of nose but he was not admitted in hospital considering the injury sustained by Mr. Chakraborty where as the injury report of the workman R. K. Singh Ext.- W/8 goes to show that Doctor found injuries i.e. contusion back of neck, both fore arms, both lag and check of the workman. The Ext.-W/9 the discharge slip go to show that workman was admitted on 21.09.2000 for his treatment in Tata Main Hospital and was discharged on 22.09.2000. Mr. R. K. Singh the workman had sustained more serious injuries for which Doctor had admitted him in the Hospital and had found him unfit for four days. The Ext.- W/5 and W/6 of the workman go to show that the workman had complaint against Mr. B. Chakraborty to his section head and Senior D. M. stating the entire facts of the occurrence and had requested to take action against him but no any action was taken by the management against Mr. B. Chakraborty. The Ext.- W/3 to W/5 go to show that the workman had given suggestions about some irregularity. It appears that Workman’s Departmental Supervisors were annoyed from workman for suggestions given by him. It is evident that in the course of treatment at Tata Main Hospital police recorded the Fardbayan of the workman about the said occurrence and G. R. No. 1535/2000 was registered against Mr. B. Chakraborty. The Ext.-W/13 goes to show that after trial Mr. B. Chakraborty was convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 341 and 323 of I.P.C. even then no any action has been taken by the management against Mr. Chakraborty. It is true that findings of criminal court are not binding but other evidences adduced on behalf of the workman corroborated the case of the workman. So far the case laws referred on behalf of the management is concerned, those cases were related to misconducts. The facts of the said rulings are not applicable in this case as in those cases domestic enquiry conducted by the management was declared fair and proper where as in the present case domestic enquiry has been unfair, improper and violation of principle of natural justice. 36. On going through the material and evidence available on record, as per above discussion and submission of the parties, I find and hold that the management has failed to substantiate the charges against the workman where as the workman has proved that he has been victimized and discriminate. The management has neither pleaded nor adduced any evidence that management is facing financial crisis or company is closed or the workman would spoil the working atmosphere of the company. The management has also not adduced evidence to establish that the workman is anywhere gainfully employed. I further find and hold that the dismissal of Sri R. K. Singh, Ex. P. No. 128663 the workman of M/s. Tisco Ltd, Jamshedpur by the management is not justified and the punishment of dismissal awarded against the workman by the management is disproportionate. Hence order of dismissal of the workman is set aside. The workman is entitled for his reinstatement with continuity of services with full back wages and other consequential benefit. The workman is directed to be reinstate in service forthwith.” 6 L.P.A. No. 609 of 2019

13. The learned counsel for the appellant-workman has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) “Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S. Viswanathan” (2005) 3 SCC 193 and (ii) “Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd.” (2014) 6 SCC 434.

14. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) “Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd.” (1973) 1 SCC 813, (ii) “Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka” (2006) 1 SCC 430 (Para-30), and (iii) “Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade” (2005) 3 SCC

15. The findings recorded by the Labour Court that: (i) the workman proved that he was victimized and discriminated; (ii) the Management did not plead or adduce any evidence that it is facing any financial crisis; (iii) the Company is closed; or (iv) the workman would spoil the working atmosphere of the Company – were definitely beyond the scope of the reference.

16. With such issues in the background, the real question which arises for consideration is; whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to make the award dated 30th May 2015 on the aforesaid grounds, in terms of the reference dated 21st February 2003.

17. Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides that the Court or the Tribunal or National Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for (a) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath (b) compelling the production of documents and material objects (c) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and (d) in respect of such other matters as may be prescribed. It further provides that the proceedings before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and it shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of sections 345, 346 and 348 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Now this is a well settled law that the terms of reference determine the scope of powers and jurisdiction of the Tribunal/Court and, therefore, it is not open to the Labour Court/Industrial 7 L.P.A. No. 609 of 2019 Tribunal to travel materially beyond the scope of reference. In “Indian Banks Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bane and Ors” (2001) 3 SCC 36 the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not approve the award which directed absorption of Deposit Collectors as regular workmen as no such demand was made by them.

18. In “State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Om Prakash Sharma” (2006) 5 SCC 123 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “14. In the instant case, the award of the Labour Court suffers from an illegality, which appears on the face of the record. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court emanated from the order of the reference. It could not have passed an order going beyond the terms of the reference. While passing the award, if the Labour Court exceeds its jurisdiction, the award must be held to be suffering from a jurisdictional error. It was capable of being corrected by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. The High Court, therefore, clearly fell in error in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction. The award and the judgment of the High Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The award is set aside to the extent of the order of reinstatement with back wages. The writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court is, thus, allowed.”

19. The finding of the Labour Court that the workman has been victimized and discriminated is based on the finding of guilt by the criminal Court in the complaint filed by the delinquent workman. The Labour Court has committed another serious error in law while weighing the injuries caused to Mr. B. Chakraborty and the delinquent workman. The charge against the workman was that upon Mr. B. Chakraborty trying to impress upon him to attend the domestic enquiry fixed at 09:30 AM on 21st September 2000 he became agitated, abused him using filthy language and started assaulting him. In the domestic enquiry, it was proved beyond doubt that Mr. B. Chakraborty suffered assaults at the hands of the delinquent workman and, in support thereof, the injury report vide Exhibit M/1 was laid in evidence by the Management. In the domestic enquiry, the charge framed against the delinquent employee is tested and the enquiry officer rendered his opinion that the charge has been found proved. The witnesses produced by the delinquent workman do not dispute the occurrence, or that Mr. B. Chakraborty did not suffer injuries. Accordingly, the charge against the delinquent workman cannot be examined with reference to who gave the first blow or counting the blows given by the parties to each other. In “Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. V. N.B. Narawade” (2005) 3 SCC 134, “M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma” (2005) 3 SCC 401, “Hombe Gowda Educational Trust & Anr. V. State of Karnataka & Ors.” (2006) 1 SCC 430 etc. the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid emphasis on maintaining discipline at the workplace. 8 L.P.A. No. 609 of 2019

20. In “Hombe Gowda Educational Trust” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “19. Assaulting a superior at a workplace amounts to an act of gross indiscipline. The respondent is a teacher. Even under grave provocation a teacher is not expected to abuse the head of the institution in a filthy language and assault him with a chappal. Punishment of dismissal from services, therefore, cannot be said to be wholly disproportionate so as to shock one's conscience.

20. A person, when dismissed from service, is put to a great hardship but that would not mean that a grave misconduct should go unpunished. Although the doctrine of proportionality may be applicable in such matters, but a punishment of dismissal from service for such a misconduct cannot be said to be unheard of. Maintenance of discipline of an institution is equally important. Keeping the aforementioned principles in view, we may hereinafter notice a few recent decisions of this Court.”

21. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 confers jurisdiction in the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to consider the question of proportionality of punishment. Under this provision, the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal may consider the existence of mitigating circumstances or the past conduct of the workman to reduce the punishment imposed by the employer. There can be no doubt that the right to take disciplinary action and to decide the quantum of punishment are within the exclusive domain of the employer and the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal can only examine whether action of the employer is justified but the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the decision of the employer if the finding of misconduct is a plausible conclusion.

22. A writ Court exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is generally denuded of its power to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the inferior Tribunal/Court. However, in a case where it is demonstrated before the Court that such findings of fact recorded by the inferior Tribunal/Court are not based on the materials laid before the Tribunal/Court, or that some material evidence was overlooked, or that a finding based on irrelevant materials has been recorded, the writ Court would definitely step in and interfere with the findings recorded by the inferior Tribunal/Court. The writ Court has rightly held that the findings of a criminal Court is not binding in a civil proceeding such as a domestic enquiry. There is another reason why the award dated 30th of May, 2015 required interference and the reason is that once the Labour Court has held that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate, the matter then would have remained confined to quantum of 9 L.P.A. No. 609 of 2019 punishment whereas the labour Court has simpliciter set-aside the order of dismissal from service.

23. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case reported in “Dev Singh v. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.” (2003) 8 SCC 9 is misplaced inasmuch as in the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the punishment of dismissal from service on the allegation of mere misplacing the official file was so disproportionate to the charge as to shock the conscience of the Court.

24. In “Dev Singh” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “7. Applying the said principles laid down by this Court in the cases noted hereinabove, we see that in this case the appellant has been serving the respondent Corporation for nearly 20 years with unblemished service, before the present charge of misconduct was levelled against him. The charge itself shows that what was alleged against the appellant was misplacement of a file and there is no allegation whatsoever that this file was either misplaced by the appellant deliberately or for any collateral consideration. A reading of the charge-sheet shows that the misplacement alleged was not motivated by any ulterior consideration and at the most could be an act of negligence, consequent to which the appellant was unable to trace the file again. The disciplinary authority while considering the quantum of punishment came to the conclusion that the misconduct of the nature alleged against the appellant should be viewed very seriously to prevent such actions in future, whereby important and sensitive records could be lost or removed or destroyed by the employee under whose custody the records are kept. Therefore, he was of the opinion that a deterrent punishment was called for, forgetting for a moment that no such allegation of misplacing of important or sensitive record was made in the instant case against the appellant and what he was charged of was misplacement of a file, importance or sensitiveness of which was not mentioned in the charge-sheet. Therefore, in our opinion, the disciplinary authority was guided by certain facts which were not on record, even otherwise, we are of the opinion that when the Service Bye-laws applicable to the Corporation under Service Bye-law 17 provide various minor punishments, we fail to appreciate why only maximum punishment available under the said Bye-laws should be awarded on the facts of the present case. We think the punishment of dismissal for mere misplacement of a file without any ulterior motive is too harsh a punishment which is totally disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and the same certainly shocks our judicial conscience…..”

25. In “V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC” (2005) 7 SCC 338 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the decision of the employer must be upheld unless it is found illogical or suffers from procedural improprietary or the decision was such as to shock the conscience of the Court.

26. In “V. Ramana” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision for that of the administrator. The scope of judicial 10 L.P.A. No. 609 of 2019 review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. 12. To put it differently unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed.”

27. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any merit in this Letters Patent Appeal and, accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Binit/Mukul AFR (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)