ONKAR NATH MISRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein and some others were charged for certain misconduct of gheraoing some senior officers of the Company for long hours. It is also stated that during the gherao one of the officers, Manjeet Singh, received injuries. In a domestic enquiry conducted by the Management, the charge-sheeted employees were found guilty and they were dismissed from their service.

(2.) On a reference being made in regard to the dismissals including that of the appellant, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I Faridabad by its award dated 24th of April, 2001 rejected the claim of the workmen, except in regard to one Pradeep Sharda whose claim was allowed. In regard to other workmen including the appellant herein the Labour Court believed the evidence of the Management witness Pritam Singh as also other materials produced as Exs. M-11 to M-15. On that basis the Labour Court came to the specific conclusion that the Management has established that the workmen named therein including the appellant took an active part in the gherao of H.S. Dhaliwal the then Vice-President (Works) and also caused injuries to Manjeet Singh one of the officers who was also gheraoed. Having come to the said conclusion and taking into consideration the gravity of the offence the Labour Court also came to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal was justified on the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) The award of the Labour Court came to be challenged by the appellant and one Megh Singh by way of two writ petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which by a common judgment dismissed both the writ petitions. The High Court in the course of its order agreed with the Labour Court that the evidence produced by the Management marked as Ext. M-6 as also the documentary evidence Exts. M-11 to M-15 coupled with the evidence of Shri B.K. Uppal Vice-President clearly established the misconduct alleged against the writ petitioners before it. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had argued before the High Court that the Labour Court discriminated between them and Pradeep Sharma whose punishment was not upheld by the Labour Court even though the evidence in regard to all of them stood on a similar footing. The High Court agreed with the finding of the Labour Court that the case of the petitioners before it and Pradeep Sharma did not stand on the same footing inasmuch as from the material produced before the Labour Court it was clear that Pradeep Sharma was falsely involved, while the misconduct alleged against the writ petitioners had been duly established. It also did not accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the punishment was in any manner disproportionate to the misconduct proved.