MEHAR SINGH Vs. CEMENT MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mehar Singh was working as a Driver with the management since September 01, 1982 when he was charge-sheeted on March 05, 1997 on the allegation that on February 16, 1997 he was driving the company's car under the influence of liquor and had hit a Maruti car. In the enquiry conducted Mehar Singh was found guilty of the charges. Taking into account his past conduct his services were terminated with effect from November 17, 1997.

(2.) In the industrial dispute raised Mehar Singh challenged the validity of the enquiry on three grounds i.e. he was not allowed to be represented by a lawyer of his choice, enquiry officer was biased and enquiry report was perverse. Mehar Singh in his claim admitted that though he was not permitted to engage an advocate of his choice or an office bearer of the Delhi Labour Union, however he had engaged one Shri Mukesh to represent him. It was the case of Mehar Singh that Mukesh being middle-passed and not aware of the technicalities was not able to cross-examine the witnesses affectively. Referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court the Tribunal held that it was not necessary to provide an advocate to the charged officer particularly when the management was also not represented by an advocate. Further enquiry proceedings revealed that the charged officer had crossexamined the management witnesses himself and had also examined himself in defence during the enquiry proceedings. Referring to the evidence it was noted that the present was not a case of no evidence and no bias could be demonstrated by the charged officer against the enquiry officer and the enquiry being not perverse having followed principles of natural justice, the claim petition was dismissed. The order dated August 21, 2007 passed by the Labour Court was upheld by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order dated July 28, 2009.

(3.) Before this Court learned counsel for Mehar Singh urges that the finding of the enquiry officer that Mehar Singh was under the influence of alcohol is perverse in the absence of any medical/ blood test. Reliance is placed on Munna Lal Vs. Union of India, 2009 123 FLR 521. Further the management claimed insurance qua the damages to the car and in case the driver was drunk or under the influence of alcohol, no insurance amount would have been released which further proves that Mehar Singh was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. Referring to the decision Workmen of Fire Stone Tyre and Rubber Stone Corporation of India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Management & Ors., 1973 AIR(SC) 1227 it is contended that the Labour Court ought to have re-appreciated the evidence produced before enquiry officer to determine whether the allegations against Mehar Singh were proved or not and also with regard to the proportionality of the sentence.