The Chandigarh Government Transport Workers Union (Regd.) Industrial v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, U.T. Chandigarh & Anr.

support of this contention relies upon the judgement of this Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala Versus Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, and others, 2009 (2) S.C.T. 134. I have heard counsel for the petitioner/Union and have gone through the records of the case. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Workman, who was working as a Driver with Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, Chandigarh, had some altercations with a co-worker an Electrician, namely, Arun Kumar. A complaint dated 12.10.1991 was lodged by Arun Kumar, Electrician, against the Workman. With the intervention of Chandigarh Government Transport Workers' Union (petitioner/Union), the matter was compromised and Arun Kumar, Electrician, agreed to withdraw the said complaint. In the said complaint, the complainant alleged that the Workman had threatened and abused him during the lunch break. He was pushed by the Workman and an effort was made by the Workman to hurt him with his kirpan, but the same was avoided with the intervention of other workers present at the workshop and un-parliamentary language was also used by the Workman. A chargesheet was issued to the Workman. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to find out the truth with regard to the allegations made against the Workman. The Workman appeared before the Enquiry Officer and made a confessional statement before him, which reads as follow :- C.W.P. No. 1466 of 2010. -3- “I am working as Driver in Depot-II, I know the charges which were conveyed by the Office through the charge-sheet. I confess my guilt and do not want to face departmental enquiry and I will not file any appeal against the punishment in any Court of law or Appellate Authority. I am giving this statement willfully and without any fear or threat.” On the basis of the above confessional statement made by the Workman, the Enquiry Office held him guilty of charges levelled against him. A show cause notice, proposing to impose penalty for reduction in time scale for four years, was issued to the Workman. Reply was filed by the Workman to the said show cause notice. An opportunity of personal hearing was given to the Workman, but he did not avail of the same. On consideration of the reply filed by the Workman, the Punishing Authority, vide order dated

25.07.1995, passed the order of punishment, imposing punishment of reduction in time scale for a period of four years. The Workman did not challenge this order nor did he prefer an appeal against the said order, thus, order dated 25.07.1995 became final. This shows that the Workman was fully satisfied with the order passed by the Competent Authority. After more than seven years, the petitioner/Union served a demand notice dated 02.12.2002 on the respondent No. 2/Management, wherein order of punishment dated 25.07.1995 was challenged. On the basis of the said demand notice, the matter was referred to the Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, on 26.10.2004. The claim statement was filed by the petitioner/Union, which was contested by the respondent No. 2/Management by filing the reply and thereafter, on framing of issues, evidence was led by the parties, leading to passing of the impugned award dated 11.03.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, U.T. Chandigarh, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. C.W.P. No. 1466 of 2010. -4- A perusal of the impugned award dated 11.03.2008 (Annexure-P- 1), shows that the evidence, which had been led by the parties, have been duly and properly appreciated by the court below and the finding , which have been recorded by the Labour Court, does not call for any interference in the matter. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that no fair and proper departmental inquiry was held against the Workman, while passing the order of punishment, is based on mis-placed belief of the Workman. The Enquiry Officer proceeded to return its finding on the basis of confessional statement made by the Workman, which has been reproduced above. A perusal of the confessional statement clearly spells out that the Workman had in categoric words confessed his guilt and stated that he did not want to face departmental inquiry. In the light of the confessional statement made by the Workman, the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer that he was found guilty of the charges framed against him, is fully justified and is, thus, based on the evidence, i.e., confessional statement of the Workman himself. In such a situation where the Workman in an unequivocal terms admits his guilt, the Enquiry Officer is not required to proceed with further formalities of departmental proceedings. The intent and purpose for holding an inquiry is to come to the truth and when the delinquent employee himself admits the guilt. There being no controversy or dispute remaining, the Enquiry Officer, is fully justified in closing the inquiry proceedings and recording his findings on the basis of such statement, therefore, the findings as recorded by the Enquiry Officer, is in accordance with law. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that the Workman had given this statement before the Enquiry Officer on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties and, therefore, was not an C.W.P. No. 1466 of 2010. -5- admission on the part of the Workman, cannot be accepted. The confession statement does not reflect what has been sought to be projected by counsel for the petitioner/Union. The judgment of this Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (supra), therefore, would be of no help to the petitioner/Union as the same is distinguishable on facts wherein the confession made by the Workman was recorded, the finding of admission during the inquiry proceedings recorded by the Enquiry Officer was on mis-placed interpretation of the statement of the Workman. In the present case, there is a categoric admission of guilt by the Workman. As regards the contention of counsel for the petitioner/Union that the quantum of punishment should have been interfered with by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal also is not acceptable for the reason that the charges levelled against the Workman were grave and serious. The Workman had threatened his co-worker, used abusive language and had tried to hurt his co-worker with kirpan. The injury was only averted due to intervention of other employees present at the workshop. The punishment imposed on the Workman was not of such a nature, which could be termed as shocking or disproportionate to the mis-conduct proved against the Workman calling for interference by this Court or the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal in the quantum of punishment awarded to the Workman. Another aspect, which goes against the petitioner/Union and the Workman is that the order of punishment was passed on 25.07.1995. A statutory appeal is provided for against the order of punishment, which appeal was not preferred by the Workman. The Workman had accepted the order of punishment as he did not prefer to challenge the same in any manner. The petitioner/Union for the first time issued a demand notice on 02.12.2002, i.e., after a period of seven and half years from the date of punishment. There is C.W.P. No. 1466 of 2010. -6- no explanation whatsoever for the delay in submitting the demand notice, wherein the challenge has been made to order of punishment dated

25.07.1995. The matter was stale and settled as there was no dispute as such. The inordinate delay in espousing a cause without any explanation thereto is in itself a good ground for not interfering with an order , which had been passed by the Competent Authority in accordance with law. For this reason also, no interference in the awarded dated 11.03.2008 (Annexure-P-1) is called for. dismissed. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 29, 2010. sjks.