PRABHAKAR SAHOO Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner calling in question the award dated 3.6.1997 passed in I.D. Case No. 41 of 1997 (65/94) by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela. The case of the petitioner - workman is that he joined in service in the Rourkela Steel Plant in the year 1973 as S.S.W. (L-I) and was promoted to a semi skilled worker in L-III grade. On 25.5.1990, he was issued with a charge-sheet on the allegation that he committed acts of disorderly and indecent behaviour in the work premises. He submitted his show cause denying such allegation. An enquiry committee was constituted by the Superintendent (Mechanical) Fertilizer Plant on 16.7.1990 and the matter was enquired into. In May, 1991, the enquiry was completed, but the Enquiry Officer delayed the submission of the enquiry report with a view to deny the workman his promotional benefits inasmuch as he was entitled for his promotion in June, 1992. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 30.4.1993, the date on which he retired from service. Those who were junior to the petitioner - workman, got promotion, but he was deprived of even the chance for appearing in the interview, which clearly discloses the revengeful attitude of the Management towards him. Further case of the petitioner - workman is that the Enquiry Officer submitted two findings, one under the caption of findings of the enquiry committee and the other finding in case of allegation against the second party - workman. According to the petitioner, there are different departments under the Management and each department has different sub-departments, like Technical, Mechanical and Operation which has different heads of departments and different line of supervision. Since the workman was in the mechanical maintenance division in Ammonia Plant of fertilizer plant, he was not obliged to carry out the order of Shri N.C. Jena, Assistant Manager (Production) and even if the petitioner - workman refused to carry out the order of Sri Jena, he was within his right. His further case was that the enquiry was conducted in a most perfunctory manner and the disciplinary authority concurred the findings of the enquiry officer holding him guilty of the charges in a mechanical way without giving due credence to the evidence on record and inflicted one of the harsh punishments by reducing his basic pay from Rs. 1803/- to Rs. 1415/-, whereby the petitioner - workman lost 13 years of annual increments which is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Moreover, before imposing punishment, the petitioner - workman was not given an opportunity to have his say as he was not provided with a copy of the enquiry report. On the above basis, he raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the learned Tribunal, the reference being:

(2.) Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned Counsel for the petitioner, over and above challenging the award on the question of appreciation of evidence by the learned Tribunal, submitted that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the punishment imposed against the petitioner-workman by reducing the pay scale is not shockingly disproportionate so as to infer victimization and there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice and the domestic enquiry has been conducted in a fair and proper manner are contrary to the materials on record. He submitted that the above findings of the learned Tribunal are contrary to the provisions of the Standing Order and are liable to be set aside. An extract of the Standing Order has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The petitioner-workman preferred an appeal against the punishment imposed as per paragraph-33 of the Standing Order and Mr. Nayak alleges that the appellate authority assigned no reason while confirming the order of punishment imposed. The other question raised by Mr. Nayak is that the Senior Manager (Mechanical), who acted as the disciplinary authority being not the appointing authority of the petitioner-workman, he could not have imposed such punishment on the petitioner-workman which is totally without jurisdiction. According to Mr. Nayak, non-consideration of the petitioner for promotion in the year 1992, when his juniors were considered, on the ground that disciplinary action is pending against him, reduction of his scale of pay imposed as punishment in the year 1992 and non-payment of the guaranteed benefits to him in 1995 amounts to punishing the petitioner-workman thrice for the same allegation.

(3.) Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Counsel appearing for the opp. party No. 2 - management, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal on examining the facts has rightly come to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was conducted fairly and properly and there is no victimization. The incident with regard to the failure of functioning of the pump in question on 23.3.1990 was admitted by both the parties. He further submitted that from the evidence adduced by the Management before the learned Tribunal, the allegations made in the charge-sheet have been again corroborated by the witness.