GURMAIL SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Award dated 5.1.1994 passed by the Labour Court, Patiala in reference case No. 554 of 1990 is under challenge in this petition filed by the workman Gurmail Singh.

(2.) In respect of some allegations of misconduct, the workman was proceeded against is a criminal Court as well as before the Arbitrator. The court case resulted in favour of the petitioner with his acquittal which, according to admitted position of the parties, was founded on the benefit of doubt extended to the petitioner. In the arbitration proceedings, an award was made against the petitioner and Chhaju Singh, directing them to deposit price of 100 bags of fertilizer, which they had allegedly given to one Nirmal Singh of Tohana. In compliance of the arbitration award, the workman had deposited a sum of Rs. 5875/- being 50 per cent of the price of the bags of fertilizer. Thereafter, the employer terminated the services of the petitioner, though without any enquiry. An industrial dispute raised by the workman was referred by the Government of Punjab under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court, Patiala for adjudication. Thereafter, the employer made an application for permission to lead evidence in support of the allegations of misconduct. This request of the employer was accepted and parties were allowed to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. The Labour Court analysed the evidence produced before it and recorded a finding that allegations of misconduct levelled against the workman stand proved. The Labour Court also considered the submission made by the representative of the workman about the applicability of Section 11 (A) of the Act but declined to give any relief to the workman. On the basis of its finding in relation to the allegations of misconduct, the Labour Court declared that the workman was not entitled to any relief.

(3.) In support of the writ petition, three-fold contentions have been advanced by Shri Palli, learned counsel for the petitioner. His first argument is that the findings recorded by the Labour Court on the various allegations of misconduct levelled against the petitioner are perverse. Learned counsel submitted that no evidence was produced before the Labour Court to prove guilt of the petitioner in respect of the charge of handing over 100 bags of fertilizer to Nirmal Singh. Shri Palli vehemently argued that when the workman was acquitted in criminal case instituted against him, the Labour Court could not hold him guilty of the charge of transfer of 100 bags of fertilizer. We are totally unimpressed with the submission of Shri Palli. The finding recorded by the Court in the criminal case, resulting in acquittal of the petitioner, does not relate to the merit of the allegations. It has not been held by the Court that the incident of transfer of 100 bags of fertilizer to Nirmal Singh did not take place. Rather, the Court has given the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. Such acquittal of the petitioner could not operate as a bar to the departmental proceedings. If the employer had made inquiry and held the workman guilty, no exception could have been taken to the action of employer. Therefore, the Labour Court was also entitled to rely on other evidence to hold that the charge is proved against the petitioner. The Labour Court has also taken note of the arbitration proceedings and in our opinion, it has rightly recorded a finding that the petitioner was guilty of transferring of 100 bags of fertilizer to Nirmal Singh. The finding recorded by the Labour Court in our opinion is based on legally admissible evidence and a mere possibility of this Court recording a different finding does not give jurisdiction to this Court to interfere with such finding in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.