RAMU Vs. SREERAMA SAHAKARA SAKKARE KARKHANE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to challenge the rejection of the reference by the Labour Court.

(2.) THE facts are as follows:

(3.) PER contra, Sri. P. S. Manjunath, appearing for the respondent would submit that the propositions of law sought to be urged are incorrect. The degree of proof required in a criminal trial and the degree of proof warranted in a domestic enquiry are not the same. The principles as regards the assessment. , of evidence in respect of the charges in a criminal case and domestic enquiry are completely different. There is ample authority with regard to this proposition. Insofar as the simultaneous initiation of criminal proceedings and domestic enquiry are concerned, the law is settled on this point in the very Judgment cited by the petitioner wherein the broad parameters are spelt out. It is only if the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on an identical charge of such a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law or fact, that it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the result of the criminal proceedings. Having regard to the facts of the present case, the facts though identical did not involve any complicated questions of law or fact and therefore, it could be safely said that there was no impropriety in taking recourse to the proceedings, simultaneously. The allegations against the workman were that on 30. 11. 88 at 6. 30 am. fee was noticed by a security guard of the respondent and another workman, moving around suspiciously at the local bus stand with a bag. On enquiry they were told that he was carrying wheat powder, but on examination it was found that he was carrying about 12 kg. of gun metal, which had apparently been taken from the premises of the respondent. He was immediately taken, to the jurisdictional police station and a complaint was lodged. It was on the same charges that the domestic enquiry was also held. Hence, would submit that the findings being findings of fact would not warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction of this court.