KAPTAN SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 28.8.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court upholding the award of the Labour Court. The enquiry held by the respondent- department was found to be fair and proper, which was taken up as a preliminary issue. Thereafter, the matter was taken up and the question whether punishment was justified was raised and the Labour Court held that quantum of punishment is not dis-proportionate to the mis-conduct.

(2.) Mr. A.P. Bhandari, learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that no enquiry report was served on the appellant which is required as per the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Managing Director, ECIL and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors., 1993 4 SCC 727. However, we do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel because the dismissal of the appellant was effected on 5.11.1988 and judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court requiring to furnish an enquiry report is prospective in nature and is to operate from the date of judgment rendered in the case of Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1991 1 SCC 588. Accordingly it has been held that law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case (supra) is to operate prospectively i.e. with effect from 20.11.1990. His other submission is that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are perverse in respect of the charge that the appellant had created deliberate defects in the machines, CL3, CL4, and CL7. In that regard, he read over to us the statement of Shri Anoop Singh, Chief Executive Officer to argue that if the statement is taken at its face value even then no imputation has been made that the petitioner could be held guilty of the aforesaid charge is there. However, a perusal of the statement shows that although working of machine used to break down during the working shift of another workman, but it had happened because the workman used to damage the machine. The witness has further stated that the fault in the machine has come due to fault of the appellant. The examination-in-chief says even much more. By no stretch of imagination, the findings could be regarded as perverse or without evidence. The Appellate Courts do not enter into re-appreciation of evidence so as to take a view different than the one taken by the Enquiry Officer and Labour Court. The findings cannot be regarded as bald and without supportive evidence. In our view the argument is devoid of merit and does not merit acceptance.

(3.) The last argument of Mr. A.P. Bhandari, learned Counsel for the appellant that second show cause notice has not been issued is equally without substance. There is no provision in the Standing Officer for issuance of second show cause notice. Even otherwise the requirement of issuance of second show cause notice in the Constitution has been deleted by the 42nd amendment and the same cannot be argued especially when no such provision has been made by the Certified Standing Officer.