GOOD YEAR INDIA LTD Vs. D N TRIKHJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in the writ petition is whether the Labour Court that finds that the domestic enquiry initiated by the management as fair and proper, could take an independent decision without reference to the findings of the domestic enquiry and come to a conclusion to hold that the charges had not been proved and the ultimate decision in the enquiry was liable to be set aside. The further question that is involved is whether in a situation where the Labour Court would even deny an opportunity to the management to adduce evidence to sustain the charges would still come to the conclusion that the findings before the domestic enquiry were wrong. The management that assails the ultimate findings of the Labour Court directing reinstatement and back wages, is the writ Civil petitioner before this Court. The attempt of the workman on the other hand, was that the findings of the Labour Court that the enquiry was fair and proper merely admitted of a fair procedure and the ultimate decision as not having been rendered properly is always a matter of judicial review by a Labour Court. The facts that gave rise to the problem arose in the following fashion.

(2.) The workman, who was adept at the physical procedures in relation to cement testing, was assigned the job to do coal testing in another Section. He had refused to accept the work and failed to report for the work assigned. The charge against the workman was that he had deliberately disobeyed the lawful and reasonable order that amounted to misconduct under Clause 16(1) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. The definite imputation that had come through various communications from the management to the workman was that the workman had been directed to contact Shri Dilbagh Singh, In charge of the Laboratory, for necessary procedure and method required to be followed in the coal testing and in spite of written orders made on August 1, 1985, August 9, 1985, August 30, 1985 and September 12, 1985, the petitioner did not do the work of coal testing. In reply to the charge issued on August 30, 1985, the workman had stated that the charge levelled against him was baseless as coal testing could not be done without proper training. He had also explained the fact that he had been referred to Siriram Institute at Delhi and I.E.L. Limited, Calcutta to impart the training. Siriram Institute had some administrative problems and they could not impart the training. I.E.L. had actually agreed to impart the training but the management kept insisting that the workman should report to Dilbagh Singh and begin the work. According to the workman, Dilbagh Singh himself did not know coal testing and there was no purpose in reporting to him.

(3.) The workman produced before the Enquiry Officer, the evidence of an expert to prove that the procedure and process of coal testing were entirely different from the procedure of cement testing. The witness, who was himself an expert in testing coal and oil, gave evidence that it is not possible for him to undertake coal testing without knowing their grades, proper analysis of coal etc. The Enquiry Officer rejected the report of the expert produced by the workman by observing that he had admitted in the cross-examination that he did not know the process of cement testing and without even knowing what the workman was claiming to have an expert knowledge in, it should not have been possible for him to assume that he could not do coal testing. The Labour Court characterized the findings of the Enquiry Officer as perverse and if the workman was unable to perform the assigned duty of coal testing as it was beyond the knowledge to perform such a duty, it could not be held that the workman had been guilty of deliberate conduct of disobeying the orders of his superiors. The Labour Court observed that in the domestic enquiry held, the management itself did not produce any expert evidence to prove that the workman was capable of performing coal testing, even if he had not been given any proper training. The enquiry that affected the livelihood of the person and which was likely to cause stigma ought to be perceived only as not properly reasoned. The Labour Court held the case was covered by a situation set forth under Section 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act and a dismissal that had been passed on the basis of perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer, was bound to be interfered and set aside the punishment of dismissal from service and directed reinstatement with continuity of service with back wages.