RAVEENDRANATH KAMATH Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both the Original Petitions the award in I.D.No.78/1988 of Labour Court,Ernakulam is challenged.O.P.No.10100/1993 is filed by the concerned workman and O.P.No.11 -754/1993 is filed by the Management.'The workman was employed as a Typist in the Management Company.It is engaged in the business of export of tea and spices.Workman was charge sheeted for his late comings,dereliction of duties,negligence in discharging duties,insubordination and indecent behaviour with the Director of the Company and filing vexatious and frivolous complaints against the Management.An enquiry was conducted regarding the above charges.The Enquiry Officer found him guilty.Punishment of dismissal was imposed on him.The above dismissal order was referred to adjudication before Labour Court which resulted in award in I.D.No.78/88.Labour Court considered the enquiry and found that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.The enquiry was conducted by an outsider,an advocate.The workman demanded to get legal assistance,or to be assisted by an office bearer of his trade union and that was refused by the Enquiry Officer.There was no presenting officer at the enquiry.On a perusal of the procedure of the enquiry,the Labour Court found that workman was given full and fair opportunity in participating the enquiry.The workman was allowed to examine the management witnesses.The workman has also relied on the documents produced by the management and on the basis of those documents the workman cross examined the witnesses.Therefore procedure adopted in the enquiry was held to be correct.All challenges against the enquiry was rejected.Labour Court found that the Enquiry Officer correctly appreciated the evidence.Findings of the Enquiry Officer is not perverse and it was based on legal evidence.Therefore,findings was upheld.Thereafter Labour Court considered the seriousness of the punishment and found that barring of 2 increments with cumulative effect and denial of back wages would be sufficient punishment.Therefore,workman was directed to be reinstated with punishment of barring of 2increments with cumulative effect and without back wages.According to the Labour Court the misconducts were,even though proved,did not warrant punishment of dismissal and the circumstances of the case the denial of back wages with barring of two increments can be treated as sufficient and adequate punishment

(2.) THE award of the Labour Court is challenged by the workman for mainly on two reasons.According to the workman,the enquiry should have been set asideas legal assistance was denied.The question whether enquiry should be set aside for the reason that he was not allowed to participate in the enquiry was considered by the Labour Court in para 12 of the award.Labour Court found that no prejudice was caused to the workman in procedure adopted in the enquiry.Workman fully participated in the enquiry and cross examined the witnesses.The workman himself was examined in the enquiry.Witnesses were examined on the side of the management and 10 documents were marked and there was full and effective enquiry.Workman was also not an illiterate worker.He was also a diploma holder in specialised Company Secretary Course and he fully participated in the enquiry.

(3.) IT is also argued that copies of the documents were not given to the workman and therefore,enquiry is liable to be set aside.It is also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sir Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd.and their workman1963(2)LLJ 367.In this case copies of documents are marked as Exts.M -1 toM -10 in the enquiry.Labour Court found that workman had relied on these documents and witnesses were cross examined on the basis of these documents.The documents other than Ext.M -2 memos were issued to the workman by the management and reply given by the workman.Ext.M -2 is the only statement which was not given to the workman.It was found by the Labour Court that M -2 statement was gone through by the workman and the witnesses were cross examined on the basis of Ext.M -2 statement given by other employees of the establishment.Therefore,no prejudice has been caused.In para 14 of the preliminary order incorporated in the award Labour Court has considered this contention and found that no prejudice is caused to the work man.The enquiry cannot be set aside on mere abstract doctrine.If no prejudice caused by the procedure adopted in the enquiry it cannot be set aside.In this connection I refer to the decisions in State Bank of Patiala v.S.K.Sharma AIR1996 SC 1669 and C.P.Paulose v.Labour Court 1996(2)LLJ 437.All documents other than Ext.M -2 were letters exchanged with the workman and workman had copies of the same.Hence I agree with the findings of the Labour Court that enquiry cannot be set aside,merely because copies of the documents were not given to the workman by the management,as no prejudice has been caused.