MUNISWAMY v. ALEMBIC GLASS INDUSTRIES

ORDER Sri.B.D.Kuttappa., learned counsel for the petitioner appeared through video conferencing. Sri.Subrahmanya., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.B.C.Prabhakar, for the respondent, has appeared in person.

2. The short facts are these: The petitioner joined the services of the respondent - Management with effect from 01.11.1968 on a daily wage basis and later he was appointed as a Farm Supervisor with effect from 01.01.1969 and later on he was promoted as a Farm Assistant. He came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an alleged act of misconduct. After a detailed inquiry, he was dismissed. The petitioner raised a dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.26/2000. The Labour Court held that the inquiry conducted by the respondent Management was fair and proper. The Labour Court vide award dated 04.05.2010 rejected the reference. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19183 WP No. 2944 of 2011

3. Learned counsel for the respective parties have urged several contentions. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the following decisions:

1. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS VS. DALBIR SINGH - AIR 2021 SC 4504.

2. STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR VS. NEMI CHAND NALWAYA - AIR 2011 SC 1931.

3. R.S.SAINI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS - AIR 1999 SC 3579.

4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. K.MARUTI - (2006) 12 SCC 570.

5. CHAIRMAN AND MD V.S.P AND OTHERS VS. GOPARAJU SRI PRABHAKARA HARI BABU - (2008) 5 SCC 569.

6. REGIONAL MANAGER, R.S.R.T.C VS. GHANSHYAM SHARMA - 2002 (2) LLN 1118 (SC).

7. USHA BRECO MAZDOOR SANGH VS. MANAGEMENT OF USHA BRECO LTD., AND OTHERS - (2008) 5 SCC 554.

8. BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, BANGALORE VS. D.PADMANABHUDU AND - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19183 WP No. 2944 of 2011 OTHERS - W.P.NO.36131/1993 disposed off on 09.02.1994.

9. D.PADMANABHUDU VS. BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS - W.A.NO.2594/1994 disposed off on

15.11.1994. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and also the records with care.

4. The sole question is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference. The issue revolves around the conduct of the petitioner. The management contended that the petitioner had indulged in various misconducts viz., misusing the official position causing economic loss, playing fraud, and displaying dishonesty. Suffice it to note that the petitioner was issued with as many as seven different charges which would come under the classification of misconducts: fraud, dishonesty in connection with company’s business, soliciting and accepting bribes from customers of the company, causing monetary loss, etc., etc.,

5. A good deal of argument is addressed about the fairness of the domestic inquiry. Counsel Sri.B.D.Kuttappa., in - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:19183 WP No. 2944 of 2011 presenting his arguments vehemently contends that the petitioner has studied up to the tenth standard since the charges leveled against him were very serious in nature, he sought the assistance of a qualified Advocate on his behalf and the same was turned down by the inquiry officer. By way of contention, counsel Sri.Subrahmanya., submitted that the inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry by affording a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his defense and the petitioner has fully participated in the inquiry. He submitted that the Labour Court has held that the inquiry conducted by the Management was fair and proper. Heard the rival contentions about the fairness of the domestic inquiry. The law is well settled that its obligatory on the part of the employer to hold an inquiry before passing an order of discharge or dismissal. The employer is expected to hold proper inquiry according to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner alleges the fairness of the domestic inquiry. However, there is no basis. A careful perusal of the entire record would reveals that the inquiry is conducted fairly. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:19183 WP No. 2944 of 2011 Furthermore, the Labor Court has accorded sufficient opportunities to both sides to lead evidence and address arguments on the preliminary issue regarding the validity of the inquiry. Accordingly, both parties have adduced evidence and furnished several documents. The Labor Court while answering the preliminary issue has held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Management was fair and proper. I find no reason to interfere with the same.

6. On the merits of the case, I would say that the charges leveled against the petitioner were fraud, showing dishonesty, and causing monetary loss to the Company. The charges were duly proved. The Labor Court extenso referred to the material on record and considered each charges that were leveled against the petitioner in detail and rightly concluded that the management was justified in its action. This Court is not inclined to discuss much on the charges since this Court is exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the judicial review is very much limited. Furthermore, the inquiry officer has found that the petitioner is guilty of charges and the Labour Court has also upheld the findings. The law is also well settled that the High Court while exercising the power - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:19183 WP No. 2944 of 2011 on judicial review, cannot substitute its conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. I should observe that this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion unless the Award passed by the Labor Court is perverse and is not at all supported by any evidence on record. In the present case, there is no legal error that would warrant interference by this Court. The law is well settled that the judicial review is limited. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits, and it is liable to be rejected.

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected. MRP/TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 Sd/- JUDGE