HARNEK GILL Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-workman challenges the award dated August 5, 2008 (Annexure-P-7) passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court- I, Chandigarh, vide which the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that the inquiry held against the petitioner-workman by the respondent-bank is contrary to the principles of natural justice as the initiation of the inquiry itself is not based on any complaint.. He submits that the evidence also which has been recorded during the inquiry proceeding was not recorded in the presence of the petitioner-workman, thereafter, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer is not based on the evidence on record. He further contends that the Enquiry Officer has not taken into consideration the defence evidence produced by the petitioner-workman and has totally overlooked the same. The proceedings before the Enquiry Officer were recorded in English whereas the petitioner-workman is only a Peon- cum- Frash and does not know English. Thus, the petitioner-workman has been deprived of his right of defence before the Enquiry Officer and the proceedings, therefore, stands vitiated. He further contends that the findings of the Labour Court based on those proceedings before the Enquiry Officer, cannot be sustained, and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside.

(3.) I have gone through the records of the case and the impugned award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum- Labour Court- I, Chandigarh. It is not in dispute that no protest with regard to the recording of the evidence in English by the Enquiry Officer in the inquiry proceedings was made by the petitioner-workman or his representative, nor was it a ground in the claim statement before the Labour Court which was made by the petitioner-workman. Having not raised the same either before the Enquiry Officer or the Labour Court, the same cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the writ proceedings before this Court. The allegations against the petitioner-workman were that he had come to the main hall of the building of the head office where the Secretary of G. M.O. is seated, in a drunken state raised slogans, hurled abuses, derogatory remarks against the General Manager and displayed disorderly and indecent behaviour at the bank premises and thereafter, slipped away from the bank. The language used by the petitioner-workman is unparliamentary and therefore, it would not be appropriate to reproduce the same. Earlier in the morning, the petitioner-workman had reported for duty at Patiala (Mall Road) Branch at 9:45 a.m. and thereafter, marking his attendance in the attendance register for full day and had moved out of the Branch without the permission of the Manager (C/I). The charge-sheet having been issued, the petitioner-workman filed his reply to the same.