S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18623/2011 Ramesh Chand Bundel v. Labour Court & Industrial Dispute Tribunal & Anr.

12th April, 2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Shobhit Tiwari, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the award of Labour Court dated 11.08.2011 whereby reference has been answered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that without giving proper opportunity of hearing, enquiry was conducted followed by an order of punishment. The action of respondents even suffers from bias and malafide, therefore only, a letter containing reasonable language has been termed to contain unparliamentary language. The petitioner questioned appointment of Enquiry Officer, however, without S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18623/2011 Ramesh Chand Bundel Versus Labour Court & Industrial Dispute Tribunal, Ajmer & Anr. 2 replying aforesaid, enquiry proceeded followed by order of punishment. The manner, in which, enquiry was conducted by the respondents shows violation of principles of natural justice. The fact further remains that without any material, charges were held proved followed by severe punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect. I have considered the submissions made by

learned counsel and perused the record. It is a case where two enquiries exist against the petitioner. When first enquiry was going on, petitioner wrote a letter questioning change of Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 20th August, 1997. He was served with second charge sheet containing two charges. First charge was regarding use of unparliamentary language in the letter dated 20th August,

1997. The other charge is for not carrying out duties as directed by the Superior Authorities followed by refusal to accept two letters alleged to have been given to the petitioner. The perusal of enquiry report at Annex.3 indicates that petitioner remain present before the Enquiry Officer till S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18623/2011 Ramesh Chand Bundel Versus Labour Court & Industrial Dispute Tribunal, Ajmer & Anr. 3 5th hearing held on 13.02.1998. It is taken to be a case of non-cooperation in the enquiry. The fact further remains that on the next date of 25.02.1998, petitioner failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer, that too, when his presence was crucial to present his defence. In absence of defence, material produced by respondents was taken into consideration and charges were held proved. Now, the petitioner is questioning finding recorded by the enquiry officer without his defence in view of absence from the proceedings on 25.02.1998 The issue as to whether charge is rightly found proved or not was an issue to be taken up before the Labour Court.

In any case, if first charge for use of unparliamentary language is even ignored, then also second charge cannot be ignored for disobeying order of Superior Authorities to carry out work assigned to him and at the same time, refusal to accept letters. The aforesaid charge is held proved and therein petitioner is found non-performing person for the task given to him. Petitioner did not lead evidence in counter. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18623/2011 Ramesh Chand Bundel Versus Labour Court & Industrial Dispute Tribunal, Ajmer & Anr. 4 In the aforesaid background, enquiry report followed by punishment cannot be held to be illegal. The fact further remains that defence cannot be taken now once petitioner remained absent before the Enquiry Officer and did not produce evidence. It is for that reason only petitioner pressed only two issues before the Labour Court, i.e., fairness of enquiry and disproportionate punishment.

Both the issues were considered by the Labour Court but found no substance therein and I do not find any illegality therein. The finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court cannot be said to be perverse and otherwise, this Court while exercising jurisidiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India is having very limited jurisdiction to re-appreciate the issue of facts. The view aforesaid is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sadhna Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524. Para No. 7 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18623/2011 Ramesh Chand Bundel Versus Labour Court & Industrial Dispute Tribunal, Ajmer & Anr. 5 “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law.