ARJUN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 30.7.2007 (Annexure P-17) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Punjab, Chandigarh vide which the reference has been answered against the workman.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per Standing Order No. 37, the procedure for holding an enquiry and punishment for major misconduct has been provided thereunder. It is an admitted position as far as the Management is concerned, that no enquiry was held before terminating the services of the workman. Counsel contends that on the very day of the incident i.e. 21.5.2003, the services of the workman were terminated. He contends that the Labour Court has not taken into consideration the allegations which have been made in the order of termination wherein it has been specifically mentioned that one Shri Surinder Singh was armed with Kirpan whereas in the statement before the Labour Court wherein one R.B. Singh who had sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body had only stated that the workman-Arjun Singh was armed with a Lathi. He further contends that there is no consistency between the statement made by R.B. Singh in the criminal case (where an F.I.R. was registered against the workmen including the petitioner) and the statement given by him before the Labour Court. He further contends that the Labour Court could not have relied upon the statement of R.B. Singh. Counsel further contends that as the award would itself indicate that the Management has already entered into a settlement with Surinder Singh son of Ajmer Singh, Joginder Singh and Surinder Singh son of Niranjan Singh. He, on this basis, contends that petitionerworkman is also a similarly placed employee and, therefore, the Management having not entered into a settlement with him, would amount to discrimination and he, therefore, contends that on this basis as well, the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. He submits that in the light of Standing Order No. 37, the order of dismissal qua the petitioner cannot be sustained as no enquiry was held against him before terminating his services. He relies upon a Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Saindranath Jawanjal v. Pratibha Shikshan Sanstha and another, 2008 1 SCT 55 to contend that where no enquiry is held by the Management before termination of the services, the services of the workman cannot be dispensed with. He further contends that where earlier no enquiry has been held, no evidence can be led before the Labour Court to justify the termination order for the first time before the Labour Court. He contends that there is no application on behalf of the Management for exercising its rights for justifying the orders in case it is held to be not in consonance with the Standing Order. He further contends that the basis for terminating the services of the workman is the registration of a criminal case against the workman in which proceedings are still going on before the Criminal Court and, therefore, the termination of the services of the workman before the conclusion of the criminal proceedings would be pre- empting the guilt of the workman and no order of termination could have been passed before completion of the criminal proceedings except in case they could have held the departmental enquiry and then found him guilty. Counsel relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Padam Singh v. State of U.P., 2000 1 RCR(Cri) 138.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the incident dated 21.5.2003, as has been reported to the police and find mention in the order of dismissal, is not in dispute. Non-holding of an enquiry is also not disputed by the Management. He, however, contends that while responding to the claim of the workman before the Labour Court, the Management had specifically in their reply kept its right of justifying its action of passing dismissal order open before the Labour Court by leading evidence. The Management had stated that it shall prove the charges of misconduct, as pointed out in their reply, before the Tribunal by leading appropriate evidence and the right to do so was reserved. He further contends that it is the discretiion of the Management to enter into a settlement with its employees. These are the individual decisions with regard to individual employees which the Management makes while considering the facts and circumstances of each individual employee's case. No employee after having indulged in misconduct could claim a right of settlement on the ground that a similar settlement has been entered into with some other employee. With regard to the contention that during the pendency of the criminal case, no action can be taken against the workman by the Management, counsel contends that this would go against the basic principles of industrial law because criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are two different fields with different consequences and results, which cannot be inter-linked and are independent of each other. Counsel for the respondent contends that it is always open to the Management to exercise its right as in the present case, the Management has reserved its right to prove the allegations against the workman before the Labour Court for the first time. He relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Management of M/s.Pan American World Airways Incorporation and others, 1987 AIR(SC) 229.