SANTOSH KUMAR BABULAL GUPTA Vs. SUB AREA MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is directed against the Judgment and award dated 21-05-2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Court-Cum-Labour Court, Nagpur in reference No. CGIT/NGP/72/2001 at the instance of dismissed employee - Santosh Kumar Gupta.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed by order No. WCL:SAI:PER:3981 dated 21/22 November, 1982 (Exh.5) by respondents as General Majdoor Category-I on purely temporary basis for a period of one year and was asked to report for duty to the Project Officer, Rajur Colliery. A charge dated 7-2-1984 (Exh.6) was issued to him by the Manager in which it was stated that on 6th February, 1984 he entered the office of Project Officer at about 11-00 a.m. and made a demand for advance of Rs. 2,000/-(Rs. Two thousand) and upon failure to pay he said that he would publish some objectionable matters against the management in some newspaper or would handover the same to Police Department. When the Project Officer refused to give him advance amount, he lost his temper and threatened him with dire consequences. He was then removed from office by Security Guard on duty and other witnesses. It was stated that as per Model Standing Order No. 16 (i) (r) & (g), he committed misconduct and he was asked to reply. It was stated that pending enquiry, he was suspended immediately and that he would be paid subsistence allowance as per rules. It appears that on 25-2-1984 Shri P.G. Jahagirdar who was appointed as enquiry Officer, informed the petitioner that a domestic enquiry will be held on 28-02-1984 at 4.00 p.m. and he should appear. It appears that on 28-2-1984 due to some inauguration function, the enquiry was not held and therefore, by letter dated 3rd March, 1984 he was informed that the enquiry would be held on 5-3-1984 at 5.00 p.m. There is nothing to show that this notice was actually served on him. It appears that on 5-3-1984 petitioner did not appear and had already left head-quarter after obtaining permission for 8 to 10 days, but then he did not turn up. On 10th May, 1984 he was given Registered A.D. notice at his permanent address asking him to appear on 30th May, 1984 at 4.00 p.m. It is not clear as to whether enquiry was held on 30th May, 1984 or at any point of time thereafter. Hence Labour Court has also categorically held that despite several opportunities; respondents-management failed to file any papers or evidence that any such domestic enquiry was held on 30-5-1984 or at any point thereafter. It appears that thereafter a dismissal order was made dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from 11-7-1984. The petitioner claims that he was never made aware about the said order of dismissal from service and in absence of knowledge to him, he went on making representation after representations and having found no response, he made representations even to the Legal Aid Committee at Sheoni (Madhya Pradesh). He repeatedly made a grievance that he did not know about the order of dismissal from service. With these state of affairs, somehow with the advice of somebody, perhaps Legal Aid Committee, he approached the Conciliation Officer on 21-7-1997. It appears that appropriate Government declined to make reference on the grievance made by him vide memorandum dated 31-8-1998 recording following reasons.

(3.) It then appears that a letter dated 20/21-9-2000 was issued by General Manager of the respondents to Shri R.C. Manocha, Section Officer of Ministry of Coal, New Delhi in which the facts about the petitioner were disclosed and it was stated that by letter No. 1791 dated 11-7-1984 petitioner was dismissed from service. It then appears that thereafter the appropriate Government on 1-10-2001 made a reference to the Labour Court in the matter of termination of services of the petitioner and therefore, the proceedings before the Labour Court were initiated. The petitioner filed his statement of claim dt. 6-1-2002 through his Advocate Shri R.E. Moharir and it appears that copy thereof was received by respondents on 15-12-2006 and for this delay no reasons are forthcoming. It appears that on 30th July, 2002 Labour Court proceeded ex-parte against respondents for want of written statement and it appears that on 21-12-2006 application for permission to file written statement along with written statement was made by respondents before the Labour Court and though opposed the same was allowed and consequently written statement was taken on record. It appears that thereafter the proceedings continued and by application dated 9-3-2007 respondents sought time of one month to file original departmental enquiry papers. The Labour Court granted that application as last chance subject to payment of cost of Rs. 200/( Rs. Two hundred) vide order dated 9-3-2007. It appears that on 23-4-2007 petitioner filed about 14 documents with the permission of the Court vide List dated 23-4-2007. It appears that the case was then fixed for submissions on validity of the departmental enquiry. After hearing Counsel for parties, the Labour Court made an order on 27-7-2007 recording a finding that the management after taking time informed the Court its inability to file documents of enquiry and therefore, it held that enquiry was vitiated and consequently was not fair and proper and the same was set aside. The Court accepted the alternate prayer to allow the management to prove charges before the Court. It appears that thereafter respondents filed affidavit-evidence of Shri Kishor Barve, Project Officer; Shri Chandu Khond, Clerk in his office; Shri Pratap Kashyap, Clerk working in Despatch Section of his office on 21-9-2007. There is a remark perhaps by respondents on these affidavits dated 20-9-2007 of Shri Chandu Khond and Shri Pratap Kashyap that those affidavits were not pressed vide remark dated 16-11-2007 and it appears that in place of those affidavits fresh affidavits of these two persons dated 15-11-2007 were filed. The difference in these affidavits is that in the earlier affidavits of Shri Chandu Khond and Shri Pratap Kashyap there are no abuses or filthy language (abuses) as stated in affidavit-evidence of Shri Kishor Barve. But they have been mentioned in these subsequent affidavits dt. 15-11-2007. It then appears that these witnesses were cross- examined on 7-12-2007 and 14-12-2007. It appears that petitioner filed his affidavit-evidence dated 19-10-2006 and dated 3-1-2008. The petitioner was cross-examined on 14-3-2008. It appears that on 14-3-2008 during the course of his evidence petitioner's Counsel filed application for leading secondary evidence. But it does not appear that any order has been passed on that application. It appears that said application was on affidavit and was not seriously objected. Thereafter the parties filed written notes of argument with citations and finally the impugned award came to be made.