R THAMAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was terminated from service, after an enquiry, for having committed the act of misconduct of assaulting and abusing a superior officer. He raised an industrial dispute in I. D. No. 297 of 1992. THE presiding Officer of the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai dismissed the i. D. holding that the order of dismissal was justified. However, a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- was awarded. THE workman has challenged that award in this writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner/workman submitted that the Labour Court, on a consideration of the preliminary issue, came to the conclusion that the enquiry was not properly conducted and thereafter permitted the second respondent/management to lead in evidence to justify the order of termination and therefore, the materials on record that can be looked into by the Labour Court are the pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence produced before the Labour Court alone; the enquiry report and the statements given therein cannot be looked into as the enquiry has been set aside. The learned counsel pointed to those extracts of the evidence of M. Ws. 1 to 3 to show that the evidence adduced does not prove that the petitioner had assaulted his superior. LEARNED counsel further submitted that the incident of assault that is alleged to have taken place on 12. 9. 1991 had a background. On 31. 8. 1991, the petitioner, who was a Security Watchman, was on his night shift, the Security officer (M. W. 3) asked him to accompany him on a surprise inspection. They found that one Kannan (Watchman on duty) and the Assistant Security Officer, Kutty (M. W. 2) were sleeping while on duty. On instructions from the Security Officer, the petitioner noted down the same in the General Diary. Ever since that incident, the Assistant Security Officer above named nursed a grudge against the petitioner. So, he lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner had assaulted him on 12. 9. 1991. According to the learned counsel, such an incident never took place. LEARNED counsel further submitted that the extracts of the o. P. Chit and the Accident Register marked as Exs. M. 21 and 24 show that the assistant Security Officer had gone to the hospital for treatment only on 14. 9. 1991. This proves that the entire incident is imaginary. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Labour Court ought not to have considered the evidence of M. W. 4, since he was examined only during the enquiry. Since this was set aside, the entire report cannot be looked into. LEARNED counsel also submitted that considering the past record of the petitioner, some leniency should be shown. LEARNED counsel placed reliance on 1999 (I)L. L. J. 275 [neeta Kaplish vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court], where the supreme Court has held that when the enquiry was held to be defective, it has to be ignored altogether and it would not constitute "fresh evidence and material on record". LEARNED counsel also relied on 2005 (II) L. L. J. 901 [management of Salem Steel Plant vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem], where the scope of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been dealt with.

(3.) IT is true that the Labour Court has referred to the evidence of one Xavier, M. W. 4. But, there is only one reference in the award to m. W. 4. IT is seen that right throughout, the Labour Court has considered the oral evidence of M. Ws. 1 and 3. In (1996) 6 S. C. C. 417 [state of Rajasthan vs. B. K. Meena], the Supreme Court pointed out the differences in the way in which evidence should be weighed in criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings; in criminal proceedings, there is the necessity to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in disciplinary proceedings, what is required is the preponderance of probability. In (2003) 3 S. C. C. 583 [lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank], the Supreme Court held as follows: "in case of disciplinary enquiry, the technical rules of evidence have no application. The doctrine of'proof beyond doubt'has no application. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record are necessary to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct. "