ANNAMMA JOSE Vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Legal heirs and representatives of late C.V. Jose are before this Court in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Gurgaon dated 23.7.2009 (Annexure P-21) in reference under Section 10(1)(c) read with 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). Dismissal order dated 26.4.2000 was passed following an enquiry in which the charge was not proved, but in disagreement expressed by the punishing authority, the services of the deceased employee were dispensed with. The Labour Court has gone on general principles attaching to judicial review and examination of correctness and propriety of enquiries conducted and has found that the procedure followed was not illegal, and therefore, the punishment order calls for no interference. The brief facts are that a charge was levelled against C.V. Jose that while posted at Paint Shop-1 in A Shift at Top Coat Preparation Zone of M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (for short "MUL"), on 12.12.1997, he deliberately with an intention to cause extensive damage to the Paint Shop ignited a match stick at 2.25 p.m. and threw it in the thinner box used for jigs cleaning as a result of which, fire broke out in the booths. A calamity is said to have been averted due to timely activating of the Carbon dioxide (CO2) system used for fire fighting. On the aforesaid charge framed, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. Both the parties led their evidence before the Enquiry Officer. After considering the evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer by his report dated 4.9.1999 came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against C.V. Jose were not proved. The Deputy Divisional Manager (Plant-I), Production Division, being the disciplinary and punishing authority of C.V. Jose reached the conclusion that the report of the Enquiry Officer was cryptic, and there was failure in it to analyse the evidence and systematically discuss the statements of various witnesses. He found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were lacking and not based on material on record. The disciplinary authority dissented and arrived at the conclusion that the witnesses produced by C.V. Jose in his defence did not tell the truth regarding presence of C.V. Jose at the place of fire on the date of occurrence. Consequently, the disagreement note together with the report of the Enquiry Officer was forwarded to C.V. Jose for his comments. C.V. Jose represented against both in his response dated 25.4.2000. The response is stated to have been examined and not finding any substance or merit in the same, the extreme punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted on C.V. Jose finding no extenuating circumstances warranting lesser punishment. The order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Divisional Manager (Plant 1) dated 26.4.2000 is placed on record as Annexure P-17. C.V. Jose's statutory appeal dated 24.5.2000 before the Joint Managing Director, MUL was turned down by order dated 30.9.2000 (Annexure P-19). In the face of dismissal of appeal, C.V. Jose raised a demand notice under Section 2A of the Act and sought reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, Gurgaon. On failure of conciliation proceedings the appropriate Government made Reference No. 540 of 2002 regarding the validity of the dismissal order which has been answered by the impugned award dated 23.7.2009 against the workman and against which the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Since the Enquiry Officer had exonerated C.V. Jose of the charges levelled and the disciplinary authority chose to disagree with the findings of the enquiry, it became incumbent upon the Court to examine the enquiry report with extra care. The disciplinary authority records in the disagreement note that the enquiry report is cryptic; there is no systematic discussion of statements of various witnesses and that the findings are not based on materials on record. This view has been capped with an emphatic statement that the disciplinary authority was convinced that the witnesses produced by C.V. Jose were not telling the truth as to his presence on the spot where the fire broke out. To my mind a careful examination of the enquiry report does not support the reason assigned by the punishing authority in disagreeing with the report. There is ample and lucid discussion of both the Management and the defence witnesses in the report. There is no direct evidence against C.V. Jose, except Raju, MW3 who stated that he was working as an Apprentice from December 1996 to December 1997 at MUL. Raju stated that he had seen Jose throw the lighted match-stick in the thinner contained in the Jig Box at about 2.25 p.m. on 12.12.1997. It was a defence of Jose that he was not present near the Jig Box, but was taking tea with collegues in the rest area at the time of fire. In support of Jose's defence, there was clear evidence of A. Yohannan, DW-1, K.N. Vidhyadharan, DW4 that on the fateful day, Jose was taking tea in the rest area alongwith K.N. Vidhyadharan, DW4 and other employees and according to the said witness, no one including Jose was present within 25 feet of the fire. Azad Singh, DW6 in his statement confirmed that he was with Jose sitting in the rest area when he heard of the fire and on knowing of it both ran out and left the rest area. Rabhubir Singh, DW7 has also confirmed the presence of Jose in the rest area when the fire broke out. Madan Lal Sharma, DW8 stated that he was present when the D.P.M. later had called Jose in connection with the fire in Paint Shop-1 when he threatened him to write an admission that he was responsible for lighting the fire. The DPM had given pen and paper to Jose for this purpose. Jose was upset and refused to write. It transpires that after recruitment in MUL on 16.5.1986, he was diagnosed with a psychiatric problem in 1989 and this fact was known to the Management. He admitted that he signed the paper, but not in full consciousness. The Enquiry Officer did not pin much on the statement of Raju, MW3, the sole witness of the Management which was against Jose. The Enquiry Officer found no corroboration of this stand-alone evidence from independent source. On the other hand, Jose's version has been corroborated by four independent witnesses, DW4, DW5, DW6 and DW7 who categorically stated that Jose was sitting and taking tea in the earmarked rest area with them when the fire broke out on 12.12.1997 near the Jig Box at the time and he was not responsible for causing it. In fact no human could I think have thrown as light an object as a matchstick lighted or not to such distance involved between the rest area and the site of the fire. The statement of Raju makes interesting reading and deserves to be quoted:-

(3.) It deserves to be remembered that none of the other Management witnesses were eye-witnesses to the incident. The basic issue, to my mind, is to counterbalance the evidence of Raju, on the one hand and four independent defence witnesses, on the other hand and who is to be believed.