LAXMAN SWAIN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application involves adjudication of the question whether an Industrial Tribunal after holding a domestic enquiry pursuant to which a punishment is inflicted on a workman is bad and the reference is only relatable to punishment inflicted, can grant opportunity to lead further material relating to punishment inflicted.

(2.) THE factual position is almost undisputed. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman') was working as a crane operator under the establishment of Rourkela Steel Plant (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer' ). On January 21, 1976 he was charge-sheeted on the allegation of various accusations of misconduct. The accusations were that on January 20, 1976 at about 2. 10 p. m. he unauthorisedly entered into the steel melting shop time office, misbehaved with Mr. V. V. Samuel, Selection Grade Time Keeper and forcibly took away the token from the token board and when Mr. Samuel objected to such act, he quarrelled with him and assaulted him. An explanation was filed by the workman denying the charges, but the Management conducted an enquiry and after enquiry inflicted punishment on February 24, 1977, demoting him from P-7 Grade to P5 Grade. His basic pay was reduced from Rs. 739/- to Rs. 390/ -. A dispute was raised by the workman, and the Government of Orissa in Labour, Employment and Housing Department in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with Clause (d) of Sub-sections (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the 'act') referred the matter for adjudication by the Labour Court, Orissa, Bhubaneswar. The following dispute was referred for adjudication: "whether the punishment inflicted upon Sri L. Swain, Crane Operator, S. M. S. is proper, reasonable and justified? If not to what relief Sri Swain is entitled?" Subsequently, reference was transferred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa (in short, the Tribunal' ). The Tribunal adjudicated as a preliminary issue whether domestic enquiry conducted was fair or not. It was held that enquiry was neither fair nor reasonable. The Management was thereafter called upon to establish charges of misconduct against the workman by adducing evidence in respect of the allegation of misconduct. Both parties examined witnesses. Five witnesses were examined by the Management, while three were examined on behalf of the workman, who examined himself as N. W. Ko. 3. On the consideration of evidence brought on record, the Tribunal came to hold that there was an occurrence in which both the workman and Time Keeper Mr. Samuel (N. W. I) were involved. At the relevant time, tokens were being issued by the Time Office for the 'b' shift till 2. 05 p. m. and by the time workman reached the Time Office issue of tokens for ' B' shift had been stopped. The workman admitted that he was the last person who wanted to obtain token, and none came after him to the Time Office for obtaining tokens. He entered inside the Time Office and he was refused to be issued with token. The grace period of 15 minutes for a worker to be present at his worksite was not considered relevant as, in the proceeding, conduct of the workman was to be considered. It was observed that even the Time Keeper unreasonably refused to give him token, the workman had no right to enter inside the Time Office, and create disturbance there. He had no justification in taking law into his own hands. Evidence clearly indicated that the workman came to the Time Office after time for issue of token was over and being refused to be given a token, got enraged and misbehaved with the Time Keeper. But after having arrived at the conclusion, the Tribunal came to hold that punishment imposed was unwarranted, and was quite disproportionate to the charges of misconduct. The workman was under the impression that the Standing Order permitted him to receive the token till 2. 15 p. m. The Time Keeper (N. W.-l) on the basis of the circular (Ext. 8) thought that the time for issuing tokens in the 'b' shift was over immediately after 2. 05 p. m. In such circumstances, when the workman was given a token, he apprehended that he would lose his wages for the day, which resulted in provocation and he behaved roughly with N. W. I. The punishments inflicted were vacated, and in its place another punishment was substituted i. e. the workman was directed to be demoted to the post of Crane Operator (P-6) as a disciplinary measure, and his pay in the said P-6 Grade was to be fixed not at the lowest stage of the scale of pay admissible to P- 6 Grade, but at the stage which he would have reached had he continued in P-6 Grade.

(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. R. N. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal was required only to answer reference made to it, and after having come to the conclusion that domestic enquiry was neither fair nor reasonable, had no jurisdiction to permit the Management to lead further evidence, and to substitute punishment as done. Mr. J. K. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Management, however, submitted that it is trite law that even after coming to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry is not fair or reasonable, the Tribunal after due notice to the workman can consider the sustainability of charges. The workman participated in the proceeding, led evidence and at this stage, it is not open to him to say that conclusion of the Tribunal is unjustified. According to him, the Tribunal had the power to permit the Management to lead evidence on merit after due notice to the workman concerned.