SHEKHAR JHA Vs. M/S. TATA STEEL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.07.2014 passed in B.S Case No. 03 of 2008 whereby the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur has refrained from interfering with the order of termination of service passed against the petitioner on the ground that his case was not maintainable under the Jharkhand Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act, 1953").

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was working as a Senior Manager (Administration) in the Tata Main Hospital (TMH) of the respondents. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 29.06.2007 alleging that due to his act, the respondent-TMH has incurred financial loss. The petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice denying the allegations levelled against him. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report to the General Manager (Medical Services),Tata Main Hospital, Tata Steel Ltd.(respondent no. 2). The respondent no. 2 disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer and issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner which was replied by him on 07.02008 stating, in detail, the grounds and reasons for which his alleged delinquency could not be established during the enquiry. However, the respondent no. 2, within a period of 24 hours, issued the order of termination dated 08.02008. The petitioner challenged the order of termination before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur by filing a complaint under Sec. 26 of the Act, 1953 which was registered as B.S case No. 03 of 2008. Both the parties defended their cases before the learned Labour Court and finally by impugned order dated 107.2014, the complaint of the petitioner was dismissed holding inter alia that the petitioner was not an employee within the meaning of the Act, 1953.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of termination from service was passed by the respondents in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given to him to defend his case. It is further submitted that the respondents were predetermined to pass the order of termination and the said fact finds support from the conduct of the respondents as the order of termination was passed by the respondent no. 2 within 24 hours of the submission of reply to the second show cause notice. It is also submitted that the learned Labour Court has erroneously passed the impugned order by not considering the documents on record in right perspectives. The charge-sheet issued to the petitioner specifically mentioned that he had committed misconduct under Clause 23 (iii) of the Tata Iron Steel Committee's Working Standing Orders. Clause-1 of the said Standing Orders specifically provides that it will apply to all the employees. The finding of the learned Labour Court in favour of the respondents is perverse as once the petitioner has been proceeded against the said Standing Orders, he cannot be denuded of the remedies available to him under the relevant legislations which is ought to be liberally construed in favour of the employees. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 himself had admitted in his deposition that there was no delegation of financial powers in favour of the petitioner; and as such, on this score also, the finding of the learned Labour Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. All the bills mentioned in the charge-sheet have been approved by the General Manager, Medical Services. The respondent no. 2 in his deposition has also stated that the details of jobs and the responsibilities of the petitioner were available with the Department of Human Resources of the Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur which would be produced, however, the same were never produced and as such, the learned Labour Court ought to have drawn the adverse inference. It is also submitted that the learned Labour Court has based its finding on the fact that the petitioner had released funeral expenses in favour of some of the employees, however it lost sight of the fact that there was standing instruction of the respondent no. 2 to release a fixed amount towards funeral expenses without approval of any superior authority. The Tata Main Hospital (TMH) is an establishment and as such it had to fill up the statutory Form-One under the Act, 1953 and if the said statutory form was not produced indicating the name of the petitioner as an employer, the Labour Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is an employer and not an employee of TMH. The learned labour court also failed to appreciate that the disciplinary authority (the respondent no.2) had not recorded the grounds of his disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission puts reliance on the following judgments:-(i) Tata IronSteel Co. Ltd. vs. Chief Inspecting Officer and Others reported in (2005) 9 SCC 605(ii) Ador Welding Limited Vs. Sri B. Gope reported in 2011 (3) JLJR 438(iii) Atlas Cycle (Haryana Limited Vs. Kitab Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 573(iv) B. Gope Vs. Aldor Welding Limited reported in (2016) 14 SCC 702