GROZ BECKERT ASIA PVT LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the above titled two writ petitions, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the common award dated 31.10.2013 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (for short, "learned Tribunal") whereby respondent - workman (Ishwar Singh) was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and 25% back wages. Further, order dated 31.10.2013 (Annexure P/8) passed by learned Tribunal is also under challenge, whereby application filed by the petitioner-management under Sec. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") was dismissed. The Management has filed CWP-3468-2014 challenging the above award and order passed by learned Tribunal, whereas the workman has filed CWP-18212-2104 seeking full back wages from the date of termination with continuity of service with all consequential benefits. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, both these writ petitions are being taken up collectively and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) For facility of reference, facts are being taken from CWP-3468- 2014. Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of this writ petition; that the respondent No.2 herein (hereinafter referred to as "the workman") was employed as Lab Attendant from 12.06.1981. He was placed under suspension by the Petitioner-Management (hereinafter referred to as "the Management") on 21.02.2004 and he was asked to explain his conduct. The workman filed his reply. However, no charge sheet was given to him and the Management appointed an Enquiry Officer vide order dated 1.3.2004. Allegations, as contained in the explanation letter were that the workman had indulged in sexual harassment with a co-worker, namely, Harsh Bala. As per the workman, he was not supplied copy of the complaint made by said Harsh Bala. The Enquiry Officer was totally biased against the workman. The workman had written twice for change of the Enquiry Officer but the said request was turned down and the workman was dismissed from service vide order dated 27.7.2004. Contention was raised that the enquiry was not conducted in fair and proper manner as even the Enquiry Officer himself appeared as Management Witness in the departmental proceedings of enquiry.

(3.) The Management had taken the stand before learned Tribunal that the workman was suspended and his explanation was called vide charge sheet dated 24.2.2004 to explain his position against the charges. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and due opportunity was given to the workman to defend his case. The workman had received copy of the complaint on 17.3.2004 and then he was given opportunity to explain his position in respect of the charge-sheet and due opportunity was given to him. There was absolutely no cogent reason to change the Enquiry Officer. Copy of the enquiry report was supplied to him and after following the required procedure, the workman was dismissed from service by the Management vide order dated 27.7.2004. As per the workman, the Enquiry Officer was an independent person and outsider. The allegations against the workman were of serious and grave nature and during enquiry, he was found guilty. The Enquiry Officer did not appear himself as Management's witness in the enquiry.