P CHERIAN URMIS Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE scope and extent of application of the principles of natural justice, even with regard to procedural matters, in the case of disciplinary proceedings in labour cases is the issue considered in this case. Ext. P4 award of the Labour Court, Ernakulam in T. D. 49/93 is under challenge at the instance of the workman. The issue referred for adjudication is "whether the dismissal of Sri. Cherian Urmis is justifiable or not, if not what should be the relief entitled to him. " The petitioner was working as Fitter Grade I under the second respondent company. While so, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The allegation is that the petitioner kept tools and other items belonging to the company in his personal locker. And such conduct amounted to theft or fraud or dishonesty. A domestic enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer found that the delinquent was guilty of the misconduct of dishonesty connected with the property of the company. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and he was dismissed from service. Though the petitioner made an attempt by way of a representation, it was not considered and hence the dispute. The Labour Court in the impugned award upheld the domestic enquiry and justified the punishment. Hence the writ petition.

(2.) IT is the main contention of the petitioner that the domestic enquiry conducted is in violation of the principles of natural justice, he was not given any list of witnesses or documents. There is also a contention that the petitioner was not given copy of the enquiry report and the third contention is that no notice was given before imposing the punishment. Virtually the workman was denied of any opportunity to make an attempt to disabuse the impressions in the mind of the disciplinary authority. The punishment order would show that even the past unrelated conduct of the petitioner was taken into consideration while imposing the punishment and yet an opportunity for hearing was denied. Sri Pathrose Mathai, learned Senior counsel appearing for the second respondent defended and justified the procedure followed by the disciplinary authority contending that the disciplinary proceedings are taken and concluded only on the basis of the standing orders of the company. It is further contended that at any rate, the whole issue was before the Labour Court and the Labour Court has considered the case on merits and has found that the penalty as imposed is justified and hence this Court may not go into the merits of the case or other contentions now advanced by the petitioner. It is further contended that the standing orders do not provide for the enquiry report to be furnished to the delinquent and in any case no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on that ground. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v Vishwa Mohan (1998) 4 SCC 310) and Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others v. B. Karunakar and others (1993 (4) SCC 727 ).

(3.) I am afraid, the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel cannot be appreciated. It is not in dispute that the domestic enquiry was conducted by an officer other than the disciplinary authority. It is also not in dispute that the report of the enquiry was relied on by the disciplinary authority. Thus a material not disclosed to the petitioner is used against the delinquent. A perusal of Ext. P3 order imposing the punishment would show that the disciplinary authority has even gone beyond the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer, while imposing the harshest punishment of dismissal from service. The disciplinary authority has gone to the extent of inferring the motive of the delinquent in keeping the articles in his personal locker. To quote from the punishment order, "having considered the evidence in the enquiry, I am satisfied that he has dishonestly removed these articles and he has done this for the ultimate removal of the listed items from the factory itself. " It is also seen from the punishment order that the disciplinary authority had examined the past record of the petitioner in arriving at a decision to impose the punishment. One material relied on is the memo dated 20. 11. 1989 issued to the delinquent. It is stated in the writ petition that the said memo pertained only to an overstayal and it has nothing to do with the impugned misconduct. Thus it is a case where the disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer without affording an opportunity to the delinquent to offer his explanation on the findings, it is a case where no opportunity was given to the delinquent before imposing the harshest punishment of dismissal from service and it is a case where the disciplinary authority relied on materials other than the enquiry report for imposing the maximum punishment and in such process apparently misdirected himself in also referring to irrelevant factors.