High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 30 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32384 of 2012 Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru. R.M. Respondent :- Satya Pal Singh And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.N. Singh,Sunil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anoop Trivedi,Mahesh Sharma,Vinod Sinha Hon'ble Siddharth,J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mahesh Sharma, learned counsel for the workman/respondent no. 1. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the employer/petitioner praying for quashing of the award dated 17.10.2011 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), Meerut, U.P., passed in Adjudication Case No. 12 of 1999. 3. The dispute between the workman/respondent no. 1, Satya Pal Singh and employer/petitioner were referred by the appropriate government by its order dated 20.02.1999 to the Labour Court, Meerut, U.P., in the following terms :-
Legal Reasoning
“Whether the termination of the services of their workman, Sri Satya Pal Singh, son of Sri Jagdish Prasad, by the employers w.e.f, 21.09.1996 was justified and/or legal ? If no, then to what benefit/relief is the concerned workman entitled to, and what are its details.” 4. The aforesaid reference was registered as Adjudication Case No. 12 of 1999 by the labour court and notices were issued to the parties. 5. The workman/respondent no. 1 filed his written statement stating that he is working on the post of “chowkidar” since 28.10.1972 and his transfer was made to Khatauli Depot on 18.05.1982. On 2 22.09.1994, he was posted in workshop along with another “chowkidar”, Shri Prakash when theft of cashbox took place. The cashbox was under the custody of Shri Prakash which was kept inside the workshop and he was posted inside the workshop too. Workman/respondent no. 1 was given a charge-sheeted dated 18.10.1994 to which he filed his reply and denied the charges but without conducting the inquiry in accordance with law, his services were terminated on 21.09.1996 when Shri Prakash was continued in employment by the employer/petitioner. The order of termination of his services is unjustified and illegal and after termination of his services, he is unemployed and deserves to be reinstated in service with backwages and other benefits. 6. The employer/petitioner filed its written statement, stating that on the intervening night of 23/24.09.1994, when the workman/respondent no. 1 was posted on duty as “chowkidar”, the wall of cash room was broken from behind and a cashbox containing Rs. 92887.15/- was stolen. On 24.09.1994, workman/respondent no. 1 was suspended from service. The domestic inquiry was conducted against him in accordance with the law and the inquiry officer found the charges against the workman/respondent no. 1 proved. Thereafter, he was given second showcause notice and by the order dated 21.09.1996 he was removed from service. The suspension allowance and remaining wages of the workman/respondent no. 1 were forfeited. It was further pleaded that in case the labour court comes to the conclusion that the inquiry conducted by the employer/petitioner against the workman/respondent no. 1 was not fair and proper, the employer may be given opportunity to prove the same before the labour court. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following additional issue was framed by the labour court :- 3 “Whether the domestic inquiry conducted against the concerned workman was justified and legal ? If no, then its effect.” 8. The parties adduced their documentary evidence and workman was examined as D.W.1 while the employer/petitioner produced Aas Mohammad Khan as E.W.1 and Sahansar Pal Singh as E.W.2 before the labour court. 9. Regarding additional issue no. 1, the labour court found that in the workshop, two watchmen (chowkidars) were employed on the fateful night of 23/24.09.1994. The workman/respondent no. 1 was posted on the gate while the other chowkidar, Prakash Chandra was posted inside the workshop. Prakash Chandra was posted inside the workshop to see that no theft takes place inside. The duty of the workman/respondent no. 1 was to see that no outsider enters the workshop through the gate. It further found that no witness was produced to prove the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman/respondent no. 1. It further found that in the report of inquiry officer, it has been mentioned that the complainant appeared before him on one or two dates and therefore, the workman could not be given opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. The inquiry report was submitted without opportunity of cross-examination of the complainant/witness by the inquiry officer. The two witnesses produced were not the inquiry officer. The cashbox was subsequently recovered as admitted by E.W.1. The labour court has found that the inquiry conducted against the workman/respondent no. 1 was not fair and proper and the employer could not produce the relevant witnesses to prove the same before it. The labour court has directed reinstatement of the workman/respondent no. 1 in service with 50% backwages and other benefits by means of the impugned award. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the workman/respondent no. 1 has already reached the age of 4 suspension on 31.07.2012. The remand of the case to the labour court for granting opportunity to the employer to prove the charges again before it would not be in the interest of justice at this belated stage. The witnesses of the employer may not be in service or interested in appearing before the labour court at such a belated stage regarding the departmental enquiry conducted more than 21 years ago. From the award of the labour court, it is clear that the employers did not produced the inquiry officer to prove the record of inquiry before the labour court. E.W.1, Aas Mohammad Khan, was Station Incharge and E.W.2, Sahansar Pal Singh, was Assistant Regional Manager, Muzaffarnagar in 1995-96. His predecessor was the inquiry officer in the inquiry conducted against the workman/respondent no. 1. 11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the award of the labour court dated 17.10.2011 is modified and the workman is held entitled to only 10% of his backwages along with all other service benefits and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- as the award by the labour court.
Decision
12. The writ petition is partly allowed. Order Date :- 6.1.2022 KS