MOTIUR RAHMAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner namely Motiur Rahman has challenged the award dated 30.12.86, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna upholding the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner by the respondent Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna including the order dated 20.12.1973 passed by the same Labour Court, upholding the findings recorded by the Enquiring Officer in the domestic enquiry, a copy of the award as well as the order dated 20.12.1973 are made Annexures -1 and 9 respectively to this writ application.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the petitioner is that he entered into the service of the Patna Electric Supply Company Ltd. in the year 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') as a Mazdoor. Since then he was performing his duty to the satisfaction of the company. The petitioner claiming to be the active member of the Patna Electric Supply Workers Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) and took part in January, 1969 strike in order to pressurise the company for acceptance of their demands as also for reinstatement of one Shri Pratus Ranjan Roy, a member of the Union, who was dismissed from service on 24.1.1969. It is alleged that an Industrial dispute was raised against the order of dismissal of the said Pratus Ranjan Roy and the Government of Bihar in the Department of Labour, Employment and Training, referred the dispute to the Labour Court. The Resident Engineer of the Company issued a chargesheet on 5.2.1971 mentioning the acts of misconduct on the part of the petitioner which are as follows : (1) That you have been absent from your duty on and from 28.1.1971 consequent upon the sick leave granted to you from 13.1.1971 to 27.1.1971 without any information and/or extension of leave. (2) That you were a member of the assembly of the striking workers that attacked the loyal workers in the morning of 22.1.1971 when the latter were engaged on urgent repairs of the 6.6. KV Digha feeder in Punaichak near Digha Railway Line. It has been reported that it was on your blowing a whistle that the crowd of the striking workers attacked the loyal workers and assaulted Sri Ramji Roy, Mazdoor (loyal worker) badly causing multiple fracture in his right forearm. You are, therefore, also responsible for the assault committed on Sri Ramji Rai. (3) That it has been reported that on 31.1.1971, at about 9 PM. while you were attempting to spike the 6.6 KV cable at Mithapur, you were apprehended by local people of the Mohalla namely S/S Ram Prasad Sharma, Ajoy Kumar Singh and Ram Babu Yadav and thereafter you were handed over by them to the Kotwali Police. (4) That it would appear from the charges (2) and 3 above, that you were in fact not sick and had taken medical leave on false grounds, which is a misconduct under the certified standing orders of the company. A copy of the said charge is made Annexure -2 to this writ application.

(3.) THE petitioner filed show cause to the charges framed against him denying all the allegations, a copy of the show cause filed before the Resident Engineer of the company is Annexure -3 to this writ application. Having satisfied with the show cause, Sri S.C. Chatterjee, Mains Superintendent was appointed to conduct the domestic enquiry. Pursuant to the notice having been served upon the parties, the concerned workmen as well as the Management appeared before the Enquiring Officer. A petition was filed by the petitioner before the Enquiring Officer to allow him to be represented by a workman namely Shri B.K. Gupta. The Enquiring Officer has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to be represented by the said Sri Gupta on the ground that he is one of the active member of the Union. However, the Enquiring Officer has allowed the petitioner to be represented by any worker other than Shri Gupta, as may be selected by the concerned worker. At the request of the petitioner, the proceeding before the Enquiry Officer was adjourned from time to time. It appears from the order of the Labour Court as contained in Annexure -9 to this writ application that the petitioner appeared before the Labour Court from time to time and also cross examined one witness, but refused to cross examine the other witnesses of the respondent company. It further appears that the petitioner himself was examined as witness no.1 before the domestic enquiry. Again he has filed a petition before the Enquiry Officer praying therein to allow him to be represented through one Ramji Prasad and the Labour Court has allowed the prayer of the petitioner to be represented by the said workman, but the said Ramji Prasad did not appear to represent the case of the petitioner for the reasons best known to him. It further appears from the order as contained in Annexure -9 to this writ application that the hearing of the proceeding was adjourned from time to time at the request of the petitioner and ultimately when the petitioner did not appear on the next adjourned date, the proceeding was concluded ex -parte. The Enquiry Officer has intimated the petitioner that if he fails to appear on the next adjourned date, the proceeding will be decided ex -parte. Even them the petitioner did not appear and ultimately the domestic enquiry was concluded ex -parte. In the domestic enquiry, the first two charges have not been proved, however the charges 3 and 4 were proved and accordingly the proceeding of the domestic enquiry was submitted to the disciplinary authority namely the Resident Engineer. The Resident Engineer, after issuing notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from the service of the company on the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry. The show cause was filed and after perusing the show cause and the relevant materials on record, the petitioner's service was terminated by order dated 15.2.82, a copy of which is made Annexure -6 to this writ application.