ESSEL MINING AND INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. PRAVAKAR MAHAKUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner-M/s. Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. (hereinafter termed as 'the employer') has sought to challenge the award dated 27.03.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela in Industrial Dispute CaseNo.147/97(C) directing reinstatement of Sri Pravakar MahakudOpposite Party No.1 (hereinafter referred as 'the workman'), who had been employed by the petitioner-company as a Driver of a heavy vehicle. It appears that the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal came to hold that although the domestic enquiry proceeding leading to imposition of punishment on the workman was fair and proper and all the articles of charge except the charge of dishonesty had been established against the workman who had caused an accident leading to death of a child, while driving the heavy vehicle (Dumper) by allegedly not observing the required safety measures, yet included that the imposition of penalty of termination was unduly harsh and directed reduction of punishment, to reinstatement without back wages.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal was not competent to judge whether the punishment imposed on the workman was severe, harsh or disproportionate and further, since the Tribunal came to hold that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and had also agreed with the conclusion reached in the domestic enquiry vis-avis that all the charges against the workman having been proved, no occasion arose for the Tribunal to interfere, purportedly, on the ground of disproportionate punishment. She further alleged that the negligence on the part of the workman was very severe in nature and while driving the heavy duty Dumper, an accident had occurred resulting the death of a young child and hence, the imposition of punishment of termination from employment ought to have been upheld.

(3.) Mr. S.C. Samantaray, learned counsel for opposite party No.1-workman, on the other hand, submitted that the evidence recorded in course of the domestic enquiry, as well as before the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela would clearly go to show that the charges framed against the workman had clearly not been established. He placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vrs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2008 2 SCC 74 in support of his contention that in the present case, a domestic enquiry had been initiated against both the opposite party-workmen i.e. the Driver, namely, Pravakar Mahakud as well as his Helper (Sadhu Mahakud) on the selfsame charges of alleged negligence and/or misconduct. It is asserted that though Sadhu Mahakud was exonerated in the selfsame domestic enquiry, yet the opposite party-workman, the Driver, namely, Pravakar Mahakud had been found to be guilty. In this respect, learned counsel for the opposite party workman submits that, since the allegation against the Driver as well as the Helper had been the same, the Disciplinary Authority was required to reach a common conclusion and not to discriminate amongst the workmen. Thus, it was submitted that if the charges against the workmen are identical, it was desirable that they be dealt with similarly without any discrimination. Mr. Samantaray further placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Colour-Chem Limited Vrs. A.L. Alaspurkar, 1998 AIR(SC) 948 in order to support his contention that the Tribunal was competent to vary the punishment suitably in a case, where it come to a conclusion that the punishment imposed was "shockingly disproportionate" having regard to the particular misconduct alleged against the workman, as well as by taking into consideration the workman's past records. He also placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Nath Gupta Vrs. Enquiry Officer, Allahabad Bank, 2003 AIR(SC) 1377 and in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vrs. Union of India, 1996 AIR(SC) 484 in support of the aforesaid proposition.