HAWALDAR SINGH Vs. TAIGRANIA METAL AND STEEL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner workman had joined the employment of the respondent company in January 1982 as a labour. He was issued a show cause notice on 7th February, 1984. It was alleged in the said show cause notice that he had abused time office in-charge in filthy and abusive language which was recorded verbatim in the said show cause notice. It is also alleged that he had threatened Shri Nyati, the time office in-charge that he would beat him with his shoes. The said show cause notice contained all the details. A written explanation was submitted by the petitioner by his letter dated 8th February, 1984, whereby he had denied the charges. The respondent employer instituted an enquiry in the said charges. The petitioner had participated in the enquiry. He was represented by a representative in the enquiry. After the enquiry was concluded the petitioner was dismissed from employment by an order dated 2nd May, 1985. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Labour Court alleging unfair labour practice by the respondent within the meaning of Item 1 of the Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry which was held by the respondent employer was fair and proper and further held that the punishment of dismissal was not shockingly disproportionate to warrant any interference with the order of dismissal. In view of these findings the Labour Court dismissed the complaint. The petitioner carried this order in revision under section 44 of the Act before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court also by its order dated 15th April, 1993 dismissed the revision application. I may mention here that both the courts below have dealt with the contentions of both the parties elaborately and have given reasons for their conclusions.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the said order of the Industrial Court the petitioner has approached this Court. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the enquiry was not fair and proper and that the petitioner was not given a reasonable and adequate opportunity to defend himself on the ground of petitioner not being served with a "regular" charge sheet. I do not find any substance in this submission as the petitioner was admittedly served with a show cause notice giving all the details and the petitioner even had submitted his reply to the same. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that after a show cause notice a regular charge sheet should follow mentioning the heads of the standing order etc. and in the absence of such a charge sheet principles of natural justice are violated. The purpose of serving a charge sheet or a show cause notice is to call upon the delinquent workman to submit his explanation for the allegations or charges contained therein. In the present case the respondent company did serve the petitioner with a show cause notice giving all the details of the charges levelled against him calling upon to submit his written explanation, which was even submitted by him. I, therefore, find no merit in the said contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.

(3.) THE second contention raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the enquiry was held in English language which the petitioner did not know or understand. It is, however, clearly admitted by him that he was defended by a representative at the enquiry who knew English language and understood the same. In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the principles of natural justice were violated. No prejudice also is shown to have been caused to him.