M VENKATESH Vs. HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein challenges the dismissal order passed by the management. The brief facts common in these cases are that the petitioner was working as a supervisor in the management company. It is alleged that he has long service with the company. While so he was charge-sheeted for committing theft and passing of watch parts in order to make wrongful gains. It is alleged that Annexure-C charge-sheet was issued in this behalf to him. A reply was given by the worker which according to the management was not satisfactory. Anenxure-D is the copy of the reply. Thereafter an enquiry was held. Annexure-G is the copy of the enquiry notice. It is further alleged by the worker that the documents relied on against him were not supplied to him. Annexures-F and H are copies of the letters submitted by the worker in this behalf. But nevertheless the enquiry was completed finding him guilty. Annexure-K is the report of the enquiry. In terms of the finding the worker was dismissed from the service on 24-6-1988. Annexure-A1 is the said order. He allegedly challenged the order of dismissed in appeal which was also dismissed by Annexure-A2 order. In the circumstances that the petitioner is not a worker within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act he has chosen to file the above writ petition challenging the order of dismissal as also the appellate order. 1.02 Writ Petition No. 17024 of 1988 The delinquent employee was charge-sheeted in similar circumstance and dismissed after enquiry. The impugned orders are Annexures-A1 and A2. 1.03 Writ Petition No. 17535 of 1988 The petitioner herein is also placed in similar circumstance. He is also aggrieved by the order of dismissal Annexure-N and the appellate order Annexure-P.

(2.) The sheet anchor of the contention of the petitioners here in is that they did not have a fair opportunity of conducting the case and that the admissions made by them while in police custody was taken into account to find them guilty and that they were handicapped in setting up their defence because of the pendency of criminal case. It is to be noted that prior to the framing of charges, the police conducted a raid of the house of the petitioners. As a result of the raid certain incriminating articles, machinery parts etc., were seized from the residences of the workers. Thereafter they were taken into custody by the police. While they remained in the police custody it is alleged that they contacted the officers of the company and the officers of the company came to the police station. It is alleged that the petitioners gave a statement to them while remaining in police station admitting the guilt. It is alleged by the petitioners that though this document is inadmissible nevertheless that this document has been used by the management to find them guilty of the charges at the enquiry held. According to the petitioners this document cannot be relied upon at all for the short reason that this is a statement made by the workers while they were in the police custody. Secondly, it is contended that unless there is corroboration for each and every circumstances stated by them in the statement to bring home the guilt, this document is totally inadmissible to find them guilty of the charges framed. The further contention is that the enquiry was conducted in an unusual hurry in a short time. It is then contended that in view of the pendency of the criminal case the workers could not have disclosed their case as such disclosure would affect their defence in the criminal case. According to the workers that it would not have been in their interest to disclose the defence and any disclosure would have adversely affected their interest in the criminal case. As such they were not in a position to set up their defence before the Inquiry Officer. Since two parallel proceedings were proceeding simultaneously that is the departmental enquiry as well as the criminal proceedings there was great prejudice caused to the petitioners; it was hence claimed by them that the departmental enquiry ought to have been stopped till the completion of the criminal case. The failure to do so has resulted in substantial prejudice to the petitioners.

(3.) I have heard the respective Counsels. The first line of attack is that the enquiry had been conducted with unusual hurry and it has completely denied the petitioners a fair chance to defend. I do not think that this is a sustainable contention. It is seen that the enquiry commenced sometime in October, 1987 and it was completed only by June, 1988. One cannot say that there has been any undue hurry or haste in the matter of completing of enquiry. Charge-sheet was framed against the petitioners. They submitted their reply. There is no case that the officer was biased. The petitioners had opportunity to engage person to represent if need be. Documents were furnished and evidence was led. The arguments were heard and the findings were entered thereafter. One cannot say there was any undue haste in these matters.