KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. A A KHATEEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the Karnataka Electricity Board. It is aggrieved by the Judgment and award made by the Labour Court, Hubli, in Reference No. 7/1980. The Judgment and award is dated 23rd December, 1985. The reference was made at the instance of the workman who claimed to have been dismissed after what purported to be a domestic enquiry. The question referred by the Government was whether the management of Karnataka Electricity Board at Hubli was justified in the matter of termination of the service of Shri A. A. Khateeb with effect from 7-6-1976 ; if not was the said workman entitled to reinstatement and backwages and continuity of service.

(2.) After the parties filed their statements of case, the Labour Court ceme to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry held was not proper. After that conclusion was reached, the Management second-party sought permission to lead evidence to justify the charge snd dismissal order. They examined as many as three witnesses in support of the charge of misconduct. The Labour Court has chosen not to believe the version having regard to the inconsistency of the statements made by M.W. 1 before the domestic enquiry and the statement on oath in the Court. In fact he has rightly observed that there was no clear charge against the workman. Annex- ure-B is the Official Memorandum issued by which one has to gather what the charge was only by elaborate reasoning. The Official Memorandum states that the workmen was in the habit of signing attendance register and going away without doing his work and when he was questioned in that behalf he talked irresponsibly to the Shift Engineer. There is no mention of the day on which he spoke irresponsibly to the Shift Engineer. Shift Engineer's name is not indicated. In fact, the Official Memorandum discloses that it was desireable that the workman concerned should be removed as there was no need for a watchman at Munirabad. Some of the important points have escaped the notice of the Labour Court which has not adverted to the vagueness of the charge at all.

(3.) In any event, this Court under Arts. 226 of the Constitution cannot reappreciate the evidence which has acted on that evidence. The fact that the first-party workman did not lead evidence will not in any way vitiate the conclusions reached by the Labour Court. Burden of proving the case against the workman is always on the management. Therefore, failure to lead evidence by the workman cannot be a ground for interfering with the impugned order. If the Management did not lead evidence to justify the order of dismissal, the Management alone is to blame.