LAWS(GAU)-2003-10-3

KULENDRA LAHKAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT ASSAM

Decided On October 30, 2003
KULENDRA LAHKAR Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An award dated 6.9.1999 passed by the learned Labour Court, Guwahati in Reference Case No. 12/1997 has been put to challenge in the present writ proceeding. The aforesaid reference had been registered in the Labour Court at Guwahati on the basis of a dispute between the writ petitioner and the management, which had been referred for adjudication to the learned Labour Court by Notification dated 10.2.1997. In so far as the present writ petition is concerned, the following two questions referred for adjudication by the learned Labour Court would have relevance: 1(a). Whether the management of M/S Tea Brokers (Guwahati) Pvt. Ltd., Guwahati was lustified in dismissing Sri Kulendra Lahkar and Sri Naresh Sarma from services? 1 (b). If not, are the said workmen entitled to reinstatement to their job with full back benefit or any other relief in lieu thereof?

(2.) Before the learned Labour Court, a preliminary question with regard to the validity of the domestic enquiry held against the writ petitioner delinquent workman was framed and the said preliminary issue was elaborately adjudicated by allowing both the sides to adduce evidence in support of the respective stands. The learned Labour Court on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the respective parties, on the grounds and reasons assigned, held that the domestic enquiry against the writ petitioner was conducted fairly and in consonance with the principles of natural justice and that having regard to the charges brought and proved against the delinquent workman, no cogent ground to interfere with the punishment of dismissal was made out. The learned Labour Court having answered the questions referred on the aforesaid basis, being aggrieved, the delinquent workman had instituted the present writ petition challenging the correctness of the impugned findings recorded by the learned Court below.

(3.) Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in course of the very strenuous arguments advanced in support of the challenge made in the writ petition, has contended that out of the four charges levelled against the writ petitioner by charge-memo dated 11.10.95, two charges i.e., Charge No. 1 and 4 brought against the writ petitioner were in respect of acts committed in relation to the Business Manager, who had issued the charge-sheet and had also deposed as a management witness in course of the enquiry proceedings. The findings of the enquiry officer appointed to enquire into the charges were concurred with by the aforesaid person, i.e., the Business Manager who had also imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. Relying on several judgments of the Apex Court, the contention advanced is that the possibility of bias writ large on the facts of the case, the punishment imposed would be legally fragile and the learned Labour Court not having adjudicated the case from the aforesaid standpoint, the award passed needs appropriate correction. Reliance in particular has been placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Surendra Kumar - Vs. - State of Bihar and others, reported in AIR 1985 SC 86. The facts of the aforesaid case, cited shortly, are that in a departmental enquiry, which was described as a tribal under the U.P. Police Regulations, a Deputy Superintendent of Police was appointed as the authority to conduct the "trial". In course of the trial, to rebut certain evidence adduced by the delinquent, the Presiding Officer stepped into the witness-box and gave evidence. Eventually, on the basis of the materials recorded in the trial, the same Deputy Superintendent of Police, who gave evidence, passed the order of punishment. The aforesaid course of action adopted was strongly deprecated by the Apex Court holding the same to be contrary to the elementary principle of natural justice and fairness. In the case of Andhra Scientific Co. Ltd. - Vs. - Seshagiri Rao & anr. reported in AIR 1967 SC 408 again relied upon the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the submissions advanced, charges against the delinquent employee were enquired into by the General Manager of the Company as the enquiry officer. After 5 witnesses on behalf of the Management were examined, the General Manager, who had earlier conducted the enquiry deposed as a witness in favour of the Management. The enquiry proceedings, it must be noticed, at that stage were taken over by one Ramanathan Baboo, a Director of the Company. The materials on record in the aforesaid case disclosed that the enquiry officer, who subsequently took over, i.e. Ramanathan Baboo had actively participated in deciding who should be the witnesses in support of the charges and in what order the witnesses were to be examined. As the eventual order in the case, imposing punisnment on the delinquent employee, was passed by the very same person i.e. Ramnathan Baboo, the Apex Court took the view that the eventual conclusion of guilt and imposition of punishment was vitiated by unfairness, demonstrated by the actions taken by the very same person, who had examined himself to prove the charges against the delinquent workman. The third case relied upon, on behalf of the writ petitioner, is reported in AIR 1984 SC 1356 (Arjun Chaubey Vs. Union of India & ors.). In the aforesaid case, the delinquent employee was charged with misconduct qua the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent of the Northern Railways. The explanation submitted by the delinquent employee to the charges levelled were considered by the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent himself and the punishment was also imposed by the said authority himself. The aforesaid actions were held by the Apex Court to be contrary to the principles of natural justice.