Jai Chemicals v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Faridabad

on the basis of the evidence led by the parties concluded that the charges of mis-conduct levelled against the Workman stood duly proved and, thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the Workman, but he did not reply to the same, leading to the passing of the final order of dismissal. He on this basis contends that the Order in question cannot be sustained and, thus, deserves to be set aside. As regards the Award dated 26.07.2000 (Annexure-P-8), counsel submits that the Labour Court after having held that the inquiry was not fairly and properly conducted against the Workman, gave an opportunity to the Management to lead its evidence to prove the charges against the Workman. Ample evidence was produced before the Court below, which proved the allegations against the Workman, but the same were not appreciated by the Labour Court properly. He contends that the evidence of Prithvi Raj/MW-3, Purshottam Singh/MW-4, and Vimal Mittal/MW-6 had not been taken into consideration at all on the ground that in the chargesheet dated 12.03.1991, names of these persons having witnessed the said occurrence, did not find mention. The presence of the witnesses at the spot of occurrence is not essential and even hearsay evidence is permissible during the departmental proceedings. His further contention is that the findings recorded by the Labour Court cannot be sustained as the Management had been able to prove to the hilt the charges against the Workman before the Labour Court and, therefore, the impugned Award deserves to be set aside and the present writ C.W.P. No. 2577 of 2001. petition be allowed. -3- On the other hand, counsel for the Workman vehemently argues that the inquiry proceedings held against the Workman had been rightly held to be not fair and proper as the Enquiry Office P.N. Dwivedi/MW-1 had himself stated in his cross-examination before the Labour Court that the report Ex.M-4 (Ex.M-4/1) was neither prepared by him nor did he sent the same to the Workman. He did not keep a copy thereof. Report (Ex.W.2/1) of the handwriting and fingerprint expert Shri Banarasi Lal was produced before the Labour Court, according to which the signatures on the inquiry report Ex.M-4 (Ex.M-4/1) did not tally with the specimen signatures of Shri P.N. Dwivedi. She contends that when the said inquiry report was found to be not the inquiry report submitted by Shri P.N. Dwivedi, Enquiry Officer, the inquiry report could not stand the scrutiny of the Court and had rightly been set aside by the Labour Court. While supporting the Award dated 26.07.2000 (Annexure-P-8), she contends that the Labour Court had rightly taken into consideration the evidence led by the parties and had concluded that the charges against the Workman were not proved and, thus, the Order of termination was bad in law. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The challenge to the Order dated 10.12.1998 (Annexure-P-1/A), holding the inquiry to be vitiated will not detain this Court long, for the simple reason that the Enquiry Officer Shri P.N. Dwivedi/MW-1 had himself in his cross-examination stated that he had not prepared the inquiry report Ex.M-4 (Ex.M-4/1). Handwriting and fingerprint expert in his report Ex.W-2/1 had opined that the signatures on the inquiry report and the specimen signature of Shri P.N. Dwivedi, Enquiry Officer did not tally. Thus, the Order C.W.P. No. 2577 of 2001. -4- dated 10.12.1998 (Annexure-P-1/A) stands upheld. As regards the Award dated 26.07.2000 (Annexure-P-8), the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court should have taken into consideration the evidence of Prithvi Raj/MW-3, Purshottam Singh/MW-4, and Vimal Mittal/MW-6, does carry weight as hearsay evidence is also permissible during the departmental proceedings and while giving an opportunity to the Management to prove the charges against the Workman, as per Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court acts more as an Enquiry Officer. With the assistance of counsel for the parties, I have gone through the evidence of the parties. A perusal of the same does not advance the case of the petitioner/Management in any manner. Prithvi Raj/MW-3 had in his affidavit submitted before the Labour Court in evidence in para-1 thereof stated that on

06.12.1991 during the day he was on leave, but in para-3, he states that the respondent No. 2/Workman Kamla Singh misbehaved in his presence with Shri R.L. Dhingra, Assistant Manager. This stand in itself is self contradictory and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement of the said witness. As far as Parshottam Singh/MW-3 is concerned, he had stated in his cross-examination before the Labour Court that he was on duty in the lab and not in the production department, where the incident took place. He did not remember the names of the employees, who were on duty on that day nor did he remember the names of those workers, who had gheraoed the Assistant Manager alongwith the respondent No. 2/Workman. Vimal Mittal/MW-6 also admitted that he was on duty in his room on 06.12.1991. He was not a witness in the inquiry. He also did not remember the names of the other workers, who had gheraoed Shri R.L. Dhingra, Assistant Manager. C.W.P. No. 2577 of 2001. -5- The evidence led by the Management including that of Shri R.L. Dhingra, Assistant Works Manager/MW-5 shows that the names of the co-workers were subsequently added as they did not find mention in the chargesheet dated

18.12.1991 served upon the respondent/Workman. No worker had been produced in the Court in support of the allegations against the respondent No. 2/Workman. Nothing has come on record whether the complaint was submitted by Shri R.L. Dhingra through the Managing Director immediately or it was an afterthought. The original complaint had not been produced before the Labour Court. The evidence, which had been produced by the Management before the Labour Court, does not prove the charges levelled against the Workman. The findings, thus, recorded by the Labour Court cannot be faulted with. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE June 30, 2010. sjks.