GENERAL MANAGER Vs. RAMESH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has called in question the order dated 01.09.2009 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Jabalpur (herein after referred to as 'CGIT') whereby the order of terminating the services of respondent is set aside, by filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the grounds that the CGIT was not correct in holding that the domestic enquiry conducted against the respondent was bad in law and, therefore, it was erroneously held by the CGIT that the respondent was illegally terminated from service. It is contended that the opportunity of adducing the evidence was not granted to the petitioner in adequate manner and, therefore, the award passed by the CGIT is bad in law. It is contended that a charge -sheet was issued to the respondent on 25.09.1987 making the allegation that the respondent was found in possession of the stolen property of the petitioner by the security personnels. The enquiry was conducted in terms of the provisions made in the relevant rules. After recording findings, the Enquiry Officer exonerated the respondent giving benefit of doubt. Such findings were not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and an order of removal from service was issued against the respondent on 21.08.1989. The issue was raised by the respondent before the Central Government under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The matter was referred to the CGIT and after conducting the trial in the manner indicated herein above, the CGIT passed the award in favour of the respondent directing his reinstatement in service, therefore, this writ petition was required to be filed. It is contended that since the enquiry, lawfully conducted by the petitioner against the respondent, was said to be vitiated and illegal by the CGIT, without there being any cogent finding, the award impugned was bad in law and was liable to be quashed.

(2.) REFUTING the allegations made by the petitioner, it is contended by the respondent that in fact in the enquiry when it was found that nothing was proved against the respondent, yet without following the procedure laid -down under the statutory rules, deferring with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, illegally the order of punishment was issued by the petitioner, which action was rightly challenged by making a reference to the CGIT. The opportunity of producing the evidence was given to the petitioner but for a period of about 4 1/2 years, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence and ultimately the right to adduce the evidence was closed by the CGIT and it was held that the enquiry against the respondent was improperly conducted. As such, the same was bad in law and only on the basis of such enquiry since the order of punishment was issued, the order was not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, it is contended that the award has rightly been passed by the CGIT and no interference in the said award is called for. It is contended that the petition is, thus, misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY opportunities were extended by the CGIT to the petitioner to adduce the evidence as is reflected from the order -sheets placed on record by the respondent. The order -sheets indicate that not only the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to submit the statement of claim, in reply to the statement of claim filed by the respondent workman but was also directed to produce the enquiry record. By adducing evidence it was necessary on the part of the petitioner to indicate that the enquiry was rightly conducted, extending all possible opportunities to the respondent. The petitioner utterly failed to discharge such a burden and, therefore, it was found by the CGIT that whatever evidence was produced by the respondent it was not rebutted in appropriate manner by the petitioner. In view of this, the cogent finding was given that the enquiry conducted against the respondent was not valid and legal. In fact it was to be demonstrated by the petitioner that when the finding in favour of the respondent was given by the Enquiry Officer, such a finding was not supported by any evidence. It was to be proved that the misconduct alleged against the respondent was proved by the evidence available on record of the enquiry and only on the basis of such evidence, it could have been proved that the misconduct of the respondent was said to be proved but erroneously a finding was recorded by the Enquiry Officer, ignoring the evidence available on record of the enquiry that the respondent has not committed any misconduct and benefit of doubt was extended to the respondent though the same was not available. However, if no such fact was proved by the petitioner before the CGIT no finding could have been given in this respect by the CGIT. The facts are to be considered only if the same are placed on record and are duly proved by adducing evidence.