FARID KHAN JABBAR KHAN Vs. WIPRO COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally. Dismissal dated 9.2.2000 was questioned before the Judge, Labour Court, Jalgaon and was also challenged before the learned Member, Industrial Court, Jalgaon, where the petitioner, as an employee failed and hence writ.

(2.) The petitioner asserts that for his so-called riotous or assaulting behaviour, having lodged first information report on 5th January, 1999, he with others have been acquitted. There has been conspiracy to ensure that petitioner is made to suffer and loses his earning. The petitioner and others were made to believe that no harsh action will be taken and consequently, the inquiry went without any opposition, as the petitioner did not participate.

(3.) Mr. Kazi submits that the Inquiry Officer was on pay-roll of the company, an Advocate and consequently, the inquiry was bias and smells tinge of favouritism. Grounds No. IX, X and XII of the writ petition, more or less deal with these assertions. It is settled legal position, acquittal in a criminal case by itself will not dilute or emit the scope and findings in a domestic inquiry. A purshis was filed before the Judge, Labour Court by the petitioner stating that he is not challenging fairness of the inquiry. If It is so, now he cannot wriggle out the same and reconsideration of such fairness of the inquiry or of any assurance given in the presence of Assistant Commissioner of Labour. The evidence of Assistant Commissioner of Labour does not support the grounds tried to be accelerated by the petitioner, as according the recollection of said officer the named two officers of the Company were not present, nor were authorised to reconcile to make affirmative statement to provide a lesser punishment or to be soft in respect of the incident that has taken place in the company. The act of assault, beating and abuse has been established in the domestic inquiry, as witnesses were examined. The petitioner prevented few of the employees at the flag hoisting ceremony, which also has been established. He has, from the record three times faced charge-sheet Considering these aspects, I do not see that there was any conspiracy hatched by the company to ensure, by hook or crook the petitioner is removed from the service or he looses his earning. I do not see any bias on the part of the Enquiry Officer, an Advocate, even if he was engaged for conducting the cases on behalf of the company, however, by that itself will not mean the Advocate, in the capacity as Inquiry Officer has favoured the company, has activated with bias. In the above facts, revisiting both the judgments, I do not see any merit in the petition. Writ Petition dismissed, no costs.