J K SYNTHETICS LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT KOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Labour Court, Kota vide award dated April 23, 1984 answered the reference made to it under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') in favour of Shri Ram Snehi Chaudhary (for short 'workman') holding removal of the workman by J.K. Staple & Toes Kota (for short 'employer') was illegal and unjustified and the workman was entitled to be reinstated in the service with continuity and full back wages. The Employer assailed the award by filling writ petition. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the award vide order dated December 21, 1993. Hence this intra Court appeal.

(2.) Contextual facts depict that the workman while working as Helper in Mechanical Department of employer was served with a charge-sheet on November 6, 1980 on the allegation of conspiracy with Shri Ram Pratap Pandey, Shiv Kant Tiwari and Amar Tiwari to commit Jheft of brass copper rods from the factory and had taken out these rods outside the Sectional store during general shift on November 3, 1980. The workman denied the allegation. Thereafter Subhash Chand Jain was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who conducted domestic inquiry. The employer examined Brij Mohan Rana (Mw. 1), Prabhulal (Mw.2), Cap. Ajay Singh (Mw.3), Raghuvir Sahai Pandey (Mw.4) and Banshi Lai (Mw.5) in support of allegations. No oral evidence was tendered by the workman and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated June 30, 1981 with the finding that the charge levelled against the workman stood established. On the basis of said report the employer vide order dated September 28, 1981 terminated the services of the workman. On raising dispute the reference was made by the Government to Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act'). The workman filed statement of claim inter alia stating therein that the inquiry held against him was unfair and arbitrary and although the charge was not proved, the Inquiry Officer submitted frivolous findings. The employer however contended that the domestic inquiry was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In the additional plea the employer stated that if the inquiry was found unfair, in that event the employer be provided opportunity to produce evidence to substantiate the charge levelled against the workman. On the question of fairness of the inquiry the Labour Court vide order dated December 8, 1993 held that the domestic inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Thereafter the Labour Court examined the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer against the workman and action taken by the employer. The Labour Court considered this part of the order by referring to the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act and ratio indicated in the Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India v. Management and Others AIR 1973 SC 1227 : (1973) 1 SCC 813: 1973-I-LLJ-278 and after a detailed evaluation of the evidence produced during the course of domestic inquiry held that finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer about the guilt of the workman was perverse, therefore the workman could not have been punished with removal from service.

(3.) Learned counsel for the employer urged before the learned single Judge that Labour Court had no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, when it had recorded a finding that domestic inquiry was fair and legal. Labour Court ought to have decided the issue of perversity of finding of Inquiry Officer along with the preliminary issue regarding fairness of the inquiry and it should have given an opportunity to employer to lead evidence. Re-appreciation of evidence by Labour Court was unwarranted and so was its conclusion that finding of guilt recorded against the workman suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record. It was also argued that without recording finding regarding gainful employment of workman the award for reinstatement with back wages and other service benefits was illegal.