HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. 1 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.50369 of 2011 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ........Petitioner. Vs. Hidayatulla Khan and another .....Respondents. ******* Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer for quashing the impugned award dated 15.2.2011 passed by the Labour Court/respondent no. 2 by which the workman/respondent no. 1 was directed to be re-instated in service, but he will not be entitled for any benefit during the period of unemployment.
The brief facts of the case are that the workman/respondent no. 1 has been charged for alleged embezzlement of Rs.9683/- by manipulation in the way bill and tickets for which he was charge sheeted on 12.1.2004; that the workman/respondent no. 1 moved an application for change of the inquiry officer, but the inquiry was concluded without considering his request. Thereafter, on 5.9.2005, a show cause notice was issued to the workman/respondent no. 1 with inquiry report and proposed punishment to which the workman/respondent no. 1 submitted reply. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 8.6.2006 with direction to recover Rs.9683/- from his dues. The workman preferred a departmental appeal against the order dated 8.6.2006 which was rejected. He then raised an industrial dispute in respect of his dismissal from service, but respondent no. 2 passed the impugned award in favour of workman/respondent no. 1. Hence the present writ petition has been filed.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite full opportunity being given to the workman/respondent no. 1 by the inquiry officer to produce evidence on record, he has failed to prove his case; that the Labour Court has completely ignored the findings of the departmental enquiry in awarding the impugned award in favour of the workman/respondent no. 1; that the Labour Court has completely ignored the cross examination of workman/respondent no. 1 in which he himself admitted cutting and mistake in the way bill.
In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:
1. 2005 SCC (L & S) 407: Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A. T. Mane.
2. (2008) 1 SCC (L & S) 890: West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO LTD.) v. Ram Pravesh Singh.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Labour Court after recording finding of fact in favour of the workman/respondent no. 1, has rightly passed the impugned award in favour of the workman/respondent no. 1 as the workman had been denied reasonable opportunity of being heard and to defend himself. The relevant portion regarding denial of opportunity recorded by the Labour Court reads thus:
^^Jfed dh vksj ls ;g rdZ fn;k x;k fd tkap ds nkSjku Jfed us lk{;ksa dks ryc djus dk izkFkZuk i= fn;k Fkk] ijUrq tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk lk{;ksa dks cqyk;k ugha x;k vkSj mlls dgk fd vius [kpsZ ij cqykdj ykvksA Jfed us tc vius [kpZ ij cqykus ds fy, dgk rks dg fn;k] lk{;ksa dks cqykus ds fy, i= ugha fy[kk x;k ftlds laca/k esa Jfed us izys[kh; lk{; izLrqr fd, gS bl laca/k esa lsok;kstd i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr tkap vk[;k ls Hkh Jfed ds dFkuksa dh iqf"V gksrh gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k lsok;kstd i{k dh lwph 17 ch ¼1½ ds izys[k la[;k 54 tks fd tkap vk[;k dh Nk;k izfr gS dk voyksdu djus ls Li"V gS fd Jfed us xokgksa dks ryc djus dk izkFkZuk i= fn;k Fkk ftl ij Jfed dks funsZ'k fn;k x;k Fkk fd og vius [kpsZ ij xokg cqykdj yk;s blesa bl ckr dk Hkh mYys[k gS fd vkjksih pkyd }kjk tkap esa vkjksi i= la[;k 21 fnukad 12-10-04 dh tkap esa mlus foHkkxh; dkfeZd Jh /keZiky ofj"B dsUnz izHkkjh lsok fuo`Rr] lR;iky R;kxh fyfid] lqjthr flag fyfid frydjke fyfid dks tkap esa cqykus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k D;ksafd mDr rhuksa fyfid tkap psafdax dk dk;Z djrs Fks rFkk /keZiky flag ofj"B dsUnz izHkkjh Fks mudks tkap esa cqykus dk tks Hkh [kpZ gksxk og ogu djsxk tkap esa cqykus dk mUgsa tkap vf/kdkjh dh vksj ls i= Hkstk tk; vkSj tc rd {ks=h; izcU/kd esjB dks fn;s x;s izkFkZuk i= dk fuLrkj.k ugha gks tkrk................................................s blh chp {ks=h; izcU/kd esjB dks mlds izkFkZuk i= ftldh izfr tkap vf/kdkjh dks Hkh gS izkIr gqbZ ftlesa fy[kk gS fd ekeys esa tkap vf/kdkjh cny fn;k tk;s ,oa tkap vf/kdkjh dks izkFkZuk i= ds fuLrkj.k rd o tkap dk;Zokgh LFkfxr djus ds fy, fy[ksa] tkap vk[;k esa bu lc ckrksa dk myys[k djrs gq, bl laca/k esa dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k fd mlds izkFkZuk i=ksa ij D;k fopkj gqvkA izkFkZuk i= esa Jfed }kjk dgh xbZ ckrksa vkSj ekaxksa dks D;ksa ugha ekuk x;k vkSj var esa ;g fu"d"kZ ns fn;k x;k fd ^^vkjksih dks Li"V funsZ'k fn;k x;k fd mDr dk;Z dkfeZd foHkkxh; xokg ugha yk;s blfy, vki Lo;a yk;s fQj Hkh tkap dh dk;Zokgh esa ysdj mifLFkr ugha gq, Li"V gS fd vkjksih tkucw>dj tkap dk;Zokgh iw.kZ u gksus ns jgk D;ksafd og Hkz"Vkpkj esa fyIr jgk] ,sls fu"d"kZ izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kUrksa ds izfrdwy gSaaA It has further been held that the domestic enquiry proceedings were initiated as the workman was deliberately denied fair and proper hearing; that procedure adopted by the enquiry officer was illegal and that the rules & regulations for domestic enquiry were given a go-bye precluding the workman to bring on record evidence and witnesses in support of his case.
In the case of West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO LTD) v. Ram Pravesh Singh (supra), the Court was considering Section 11-A of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in that context it has been held that where two views are possible on evidence, Industrial Tribunal should be very slow in interfering with the findings arrived at in domestic enquiry as standard of proof in domestic enquiry is preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt as he is required in criminal case. In that case plea of alibi was accepted by the Tribunal which was not based on any evidence as the award of the Labour Court was set aside holding that general proposition of law accepted that Labour Court can award lesser punishment in a given case.
In the other case, Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane (supra), it was held that examination of passengers of vehicle from whom the said sum was collected, was not essential. It was further held that there was other material to establish misconduct of respondent and moreover possession of said excess sum of money on the part of the respondent/workman, a fact proved, is itself a misconduct.
In the instant case, the Labour Court has found that witnesses could not prove the case of the department. The Court below has noted detailed procedure and has come to the conclusion that there is no possibility of embezzling money. According to the finding of the Labour Court, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are perverse and against evidence and material on record. In this regard relevant portion of Labour Court's finding is thus:
bl tkap vk[;k esa u rks lk{; dh leh{kk dh xbZA Jfed us ftu xokgksa dks cqykuk pkgk mUgsa ugha cqyk;k x;kA Jfed us vius [kpsZ ij cqykus dh ekax dh og Hkh ugha ekuh xbZ Jfed }kjk tkap vf/kdkjh cnyus ds izkFkZuk i= ij D;k fuLrkj.k gqvk ;g Hkh ugha crk;k x;kA tkap esa xokgksa dks u cqyk;s tkus dk dksbZ ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k ugha crk;k x;k tcfd Jfed us fy[kk Fkk fd lHkh xokg foHkkxh; deZpkjh gSaaA bl laca/k esa Jfed i{k dh vksj ls fofu;ekoyh dh /kkjk 63 ¼3½ dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkdf"kZr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa bl ckr dk mYys[k gS fd vkjksih dks xokgksa ls izfrijh{kk djus Lo;a vius ekSf[kd lk{; izLrqr djus vkSj ,sls xokgksa dks ryc djkus ftldh og pkgs volj fn;k tk;sxk vkSj ;fn fdlh xokg dks tkap vf/kdkjh cqykuk vko';d ugha le>rs rks i;kZIr dkj.k fy[kdj ryc djus ls badkj djsxkA tkap vk[;k dk voyksdu djus ls Li"V gS fd tkap esa fofu;ekoyh ds fu;eksa dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;kA izkd`frd U;k;k ds fl)kUrksa dh iw.kZr;% mis{kk dh xbZA vr% tkap dk;Zokgh izkd`frd U;k;k ds fl)kUrksa ds izfrdwy gSA As regards conclusion by the enquiry officer is concerned the Labour Court in its award held that proceedings are perverse and against the record . The relevant part of the finding are:-
tgka rd tkap vk[;k esa fu"d"kZ dk iz'u gS tkap esa dk;Zokgh dk iwjk o`rkUr fy[kk x;k gSA izys[kh; o ekSf[kd lk{;ksa dk foospu ugha fd;k x;k gSA eq[;r% ;gh fooj.k fn;k x;k gS fd fdl&fdl rkjh[k dks D;k gqvkA tkap esa ek= izys[kksa dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA tkap esa fookfnr fVdVksa ij Hkh fopkj ugha fd;k x;k gSA fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ leh{kk lk{; laca/kh ugha gSA cfYd ,d ykbZu ;g nh xbZ fd ^^Li"V gS fd vkjksih tkucw> dj tkap dk;Zokgh iw.kZ ugha gksus ns jgk gS D;kasfd og Hkz"Vkpkj esa fyIr jgk gSA tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk ,slk fu"d"kZ vfHkys[kksa ls ijs ijolZ ¼½ fu"d"kZ dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA tgka rd U;k;ky; esa lk{; izLrqr gksus dk iz'u gS lsok;kstd i{k dh vksj ls 2 xokg izlrqr gq, gS ftuesa ,d lk{kh /khjt xks;y bZ0MCyw&2 ds :i esa izLrqr gq, gSA bUgksaus vius izfr&ijh{k.k esa dFku fd;k gS fd ;g lgh gS fd izR;sd ifjpkyd ekxZ lapkyu ls ykSVdj vkus ij fcdzh; fVdV ,oa izLrqr ekxZ i= dks igys psafdax fyfidksa ls psd djkrs gSa vkSj mlds ckn gh fu;e /ku dks"k esa tek djkrs gSaA xokg us ;g dFku fd;k gS fd fdlh psafdax fyfid us gsjkQsjh ds f[kykQ f'kdk;d dh gks bldh Hkh mUgsa tkudkjh ugha gSA xokg us ;g Hkh dgk gS fd fdlh us fgnk;rqYyk ds f[kykQ ,slh f'kdk;r dh gks fd iSlk ysdj fVdV ugha nhA bldh Hkh mUgsa tkudkjh ugha gSA xokg us var esa dgk vkt tks fVdV lwph 21 ¼ch½ 1 c;ku ds le; nkf[ky dh gS og i=koyh ls ugha vkbZ cfYd vyx ls vkbZ gSA bl laca/k esa mudk ;g dFku gS fd fVdVsa tkap i=koyh dk Hkkx jgh gks bldk dksbZ izek.k tkap i=koyh ij ugha gSA ;g mugksaus ;g Hkh ekuk gS fd lwph 21 ¼ch½ ¼1½ ds lkFk tks fVdV vk;s mu ij fdlh ij fdlh ij Hkh okgu uEcj vafdr ugha gSA ijUrq mUgksaus viuh fjiksVZ esa ugha fy[kk fd ifjpkyd us uEcj ugha MkykA lsok;kstd i{k dh vksj ls nwljs xokg th0lh0 oekZ bZ0MCyw0 &1 ds :i esa izLrqr gq, gSa ftUgksaus vius izfr&ijh{k.k esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izR;sd ifjpkyd ekxZ ls vkdj rHkh fVdVksa o ekxZ i=ksa dh psafdax fyfid ls djkrk gS vkSj psfdax fyfid }kjk psd djus o vks0ds0 djus ds ckn gh fuxe /ku tek djk;k tkrk gSA xokg th-lh-oekZ us ;g Hkh dgk gS fd pafdax mn~ns'; ;gh gksrk gS fd ifjpkyd ls dksbZ =qfV dkxtkrksa esa gqbZ gks rks mls Bhd dj nh tk;A xokg us ;g Hkh dgk gS fd mUgksaus viuh fjiksVZ ds lkFk mUgksaus bu fVdVksa dh izfr;ka nkf[ky ugha dh ftUgsa mugksaus fookfnr crk;k FkkA xokgksa ds c;kuksa ls Li"V gS fd fookfnr fVdVksa dks tkap dk Hkkx crk;k gh ugha x;kA xokg ds c;ku esa ;g Hkh vk;k fd lgk;d {ks=h; izcU/kd lgkc us fgnk;rqYyk ds dk;Z dh psfdax dk Hkkj mUgsa lkSaik FkkA xokgksa ds c;kuksa ls izdV gksrk gS fd ekxZ ls ykSVus ds ckn Jfed }kjk iz;qDr ekxZ o fVdVksa esa dksbZ =qfV ugha ikbZ xbZ Fkh vkSj fuxe /ku mUgha fnuksa esa tek gks x;k Fkk ;fn ,slk ugha gksrk rks Jfed dh f'kdk;r ekxZ ls ykSVrs le; gh gks xbZ gksrhA okLro esa lsok;kstd i{k ds vf/kdkfj;ksa us fgnk;rqYyk ds dke dh fo'ks"k psafdax djkbZ ftlls Jfed ds bl dFku dks cy feyrk gS fd ek= mls nafMr djus ds mn~ns'; ls mldh NksVh&NksVh =qfV;ksa dks tks mlls V`safuax u gksus ds dkj.k u tkudkjh esa gqbZ] dks fopkj esa ysdj Jfed dh nqHkkZouk crk dj nf.Mr dj fn;k x;kA lsok;kstd i{k dh vksj ls ;g ugha dgk x;k fd Jfed ds pkyd in ij fu;qfDr gksus ds ckotwn ifjpkyd dk dke ysus ds fy, mls dksbZ V`sfuax nh xbZ gksA lsok;kstd i{k dh vksj ls ,slk lk{;k ugha vk;k fd lacaf/kr Jfed }kjk ifjpkyd dk dk;Z djus ds nkSjku fdlh psfdax fyfid dh fjiksVZ ,slh vkbZ gks fd Jfed us ekxZ lapkyu esa Hkz"Vkpkj fd;kA i=koyh dk voyksdu djus ls Li"V gS fd Jfed ij e[; :i ls ;g vkjksi jgk gS fd mlus vksoj&jkbZfVax djds 9 dk ,d cuk fn;k vkSj 8 fVdVksa dks iqu% fodz; dj fn;k tcfd ,slk laHko ugha D;ksafd fVdVksa ij dgka ls dgka fy[kk gksrk gS fVdV nks izfr;ksa esa gksrh gS fVdV okil ysuk laHko ugha gSA bl laca/k esa tks xokg bZ0MCyw0 2 /khjt xks;y izLrqr gq, gSa mugksaus vius c;ku esa ;g ekuk gS fd fVdV nks izfr;ksa esa gksrs gS ewy izfr fuxe esa tek gksrh gS nwljh dkcZu izfr ;k=h dks rRdky ns nh tkrh gSa vkSj lwph&2 1 ¼ch½ 1 ds lkfk layXu fVdVksa esa lHkh esa dkcZu Nki i`"B esa gS ijUrq Åij ds vuqlkj Nki viBuh; gSA ,slh fLfkfr esa dSls eku fy;k x;k fd fVdVksa dh nqckjk fcdzh dh xbZ ;g Li"V ugha fd;k x;k vkSj ek= lansg ds vk/kkj ij vkjksi i= ns fn;k x;kA bl laca/k esa Jfed i+{k dh vksj ls 2009 ys[k vkbZ0lh0 ds i`"B la[;k 3657 ij izdkf'kr ekuuh; iatkc ,.M gfj;k.kk mPp U;k;ky; }kjk LVsV vkWaQ gfj;k.kk cuke vorkj flag ds ekeys esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dk mnkgj.k izLrqr fd;k gSA Jh /khjt xks;y us vius c;kuksa esa ;g ekuk gS fd lwph 17 ¼ch½ 1 dk izys[k la[;k 22 tkap vf/kdkjh ds le{k fn, x;s muds c;ku dh Nk;k izfr gSA bl c;ku esa mUgksaus fVdVksa dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k Fkk dsoy ekxZ i= esa xM+cM+h dk myys[k fd;k FkkA Li"V gS fd tkap ds lkFk lkFk tkap dk;Zokgh ds vykok U;k;ky; esa Hkh Jfed ij dfFkr vkjksi fl) ugha fd;s tk lds vkSj Jfed dks ek= lansg ds vk/kkj ij fcuk fdlh mfpr rdZiw.kZ fu"d"kZ ds ;g fy[kdj nks"kh crk fn;k x;k fd og Hkz"Vkpkj desa fyIr jgk gSA bl izdkj tkap dk;Zokgh o mlds fu"d"kZ Hkh U;k;laxr o rdZ laxr ugha gSaA The Court accordingly concluded by recording finding of facts that termination of service of the employee Hidayatulla w.e.f. 8.6.2006 is illegal and unjustified and that he is entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity from the aforesaid date without any back wages.
From the above finding, it is apparent that the Labour Court has entered into every aspect of the matter and the evidence recorded by the employer to prove its case. Admittedly, there has been no irregularity, illegality or misconduct found during checking at very stages by the department and the amount deposited by the workman/respondent was found to be correct. As regards other lying way bill is concerned, explanation of respondent/workman was found sufficient by the Labour Court that due to paucity of conductors the department was putting on duty the drivers who were not given training.
Thus, the cases cited by the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
For all the reasons stated above, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the finding of facts recorded by the court below.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dated: 02.09.2011 RCT/-