SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been filed by the Superintending Engineer, Coimbatore Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Coimbatore against the decision of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. The first writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.7.1994 passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore holding as a preliminary issue that the domestic inquiry conducted by the present petitioner was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The second writ petition is directed against the ultimate award in I.D.No.311 of 1990 dated 21.12.1994 directing that the present second respondent should be reinstated in service with continuity of service with full backwages.

(2.) . The second respondent was working as a watchman under the petitioner. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the second respondent on the allegation that he failed to perform his duty on 19.1.1989 when certain materials were brought to the stockyard and the lorry which brought those materials was allowed to go out without proper verification as a result of which shortage of 457 kgs of 10mm rods was found subsequently. Before initiating the departmental proceeding, an explanation was called for from the second respondent, wherein the second respondent while admitting that he was the watchman at the relevant time, denied in respect of materials taken out. In the departmental proceedings, the contractor in whose lorry the materials had been brought was examined and the statement of the second respondent made before the police also placed before the enquiring authority. The departmental authrotiy came to the conclusion that shortage of 10mm rods has been established and that was due to the negligence of the second respondent as he had not checked the lorry while it was going out. On the basis of such departmental proceedings, an order of dismissal was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.D.No.311 of 1990. The procedural validity of the departmental proceedings was taken up as a preliminary issue and the Labour Court mainly relying upon the fact that the statement made by the second respondent before the police had been relied upon, even though a copy of the statement has not been furnished, held that principles of natural justice had been violated. Thereafter certain witnesses were examined in the Labour Court on behalf of the Department. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was no material to show that respondent No.2 was the watchman at the relevant time when the lorry had gone out and held that culpability of the respondent No.2 was not established. Accordingly, a direction for reinstatement with full backwages had been given.

(3.) . Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the observation of the Labour Court in the preliminary issue that principles of natural justice had not been followed in the domestic enquiry is illegal and cannot be supported by law. He has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1997(1) L.L.N. 62 (KULDIP SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS). It has been further submitted that even assuming that the statement made before the police should not have been relied upon without furnishing a copy of the statement, residue material in the domestic enquiry was sufficient and such other part of the domestic enquiry was not at all vitiated. It has been further pointed out that even otherwise before the Labour Court sufficient materials have been produced to show the negligence of the watchman and the Labour Court has erroneously come to a conclusion regarding absence of liability by committing an error of record. It has been submitted that in either view of the matter, the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained.