HARYANA CO Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, dated 13.8.1993 in Reference No. 103 of 1990 holding that the enquiry was not proper, fair and the enquiry report is visiated.

(2.) The 2nd respondent was working with the petitioner-Mill as Cane Inspector in the year 1989. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 23.1.1982 for not delivering the cane indents to the growers of Village Baniayani. He was given a further chargesheet on 2.12.1985 for misbehaving the Deputy Cane Manager. He was placed under suspension and reinstated after tendering apology. Again he was placed under suspension on 27.3.1989 on the charges that he had issued bogus cane receipts in the name of one Sunder Lal. Thereupon enquiry was held against the 2nd respondent, Shri R.D. Sharma, Office Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The 2nd respondent contended before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, that the enquiry conducted by Shri R.D. Sharma, Office Manager, was not proper, legal and, therefore, it is vitiated. Though the 2nd respondent moved an application for the change of the Enquiry Officer, his request was not acceded to. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and the 2nd respondent has not participated in the said enquiry from 18.12.1989. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 4.1.1990 on the basis of which the 2nd respondent was dissmissed from service by an order dated 18/20.1.1990. The 2nd respondent raiseded industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak. The Tribunal decided the question whether domestic enquiry was valid and proper and on the basis of the material on record, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry was not proper, fair and, therefore, is vitiated.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner Mill filed the present writ petition. There is no dispute on the point that Shri R.D. Sharma, Office Manager, was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry against the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent filed an application before the Managing Director on 26.7.1989 requesting therein that the enquiry be got conducted from some other officer. Again on 7.8.1989, die 2nd respondent wrote a letter to the Managing Director of the Mills reiterating his request dated 26.7.1989 for change of the Enquiry Officer. He further stated there that he did not expect justice from the Office Manager, who had a personal grudge against him because he worked with him at the relevant time. The Managing Director did not change the Enquiry Officer on the request of the 2nd respondent.