Reliance Industries Limited vs Kanubhai Jesingbhai Makwana

Gujarat High Court

Reliance Industries Limited vs Kanubhai Jesingbhai Makwana on 9 May, 2025

                                                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/6946/2025                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025

                                                                                                                      undefined




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                                 R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6946 of 2025
                        FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
                        HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
                        ==========================================================

                                     Approved for Reporting                         Yes           No
                                                                                                  NO
                        ==========================================================
                                                     RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED
                                                                Versus
                                                    KANUBHAI JESINGBHAI MAKWANA
                        ==========================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MR KEYUR GANDHI WITH MR NIRAV JOSHI AND MS PRAVALIKHA
                        BATTHINI FOR GANDHI LAW ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Petitioner(s) No.
                        1
                        ==========================================================
                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
                                           Date : 09/05/2025
                                           ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court below Exhibit 91 in Reference No. 115 of 2002, whereby the Labour Court allowed the application seeking issuance of summons to witness Vitthal Biradar, a witness cited by the respondent-workman. The petitioner also challenges the subsequent order dated 17.01.2025 passed below Exhibit 96 in the same Reference, whereby the application filed by the present petitioner seeking stay of the aforesaid order dated 06.12.2024 came to be rejected.

2. Gist of the case are that the respondent was appointed as a Fireman at the Hazira Unit on 06.02.1991 for a probation period of six months, and was subsequently confirmed on the said post with effect from 15.11.1991. Thereafter, the respondent was placed in Grade T5 as a Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 22:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6946/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined Fireman with effect from 15.02.1997, and his basic salary was revised to ₹1,380/- per month. On 30.06.2001, after completing his duty in the 'B' shift (i.e., from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.), while travelling in a company-provided transportation bus, the respondent was found during routine checking by a security guard to be carrying two diameter grinding plates concealed in his raincoat. Consequently, the petitioner company issued a chargesheet dated 07.07.2001 for the alleged misconduct, and a departmental inquiry was thereafter initiated, which was concluded on the basis of the respondent's admission of guilt.

2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that during the departmental inquiry, the respondent did not examine any witness in support of his defence. Consequently, the inquiry report concluded that the respondent was guilty of misconduct. Upon issuance of the second show cause notice, the petitioner company terminated the respondent's services by passing an order of dismissal dated 27.11.2001. Challenging the dismissal order, the respondent filed a complaint before the learned Labour Commissioner, Surat, on 26.12.2001, seeking a direction for reinstatement with back wages. As the dispute could not be resolved at the conciliation stage, it culminated into Reference No.115 of 2002, which is still pending adjudication.

2.2. The respondent filed a statement of claim below Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 22:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6946/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined Exhibit 4, alleging that the departmental inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner filed a written statement below Exhibit 10. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application below Exhibit 16, challenging the legality and validity of the inquiry. During the pendency of the hearing on Exhibit 16, the respondent also filed an application below Exhibit 23, seeking production of certain documents from the petitioner company to determine the legality of the inquiry. The learned Labour Court, by order dated 14.05.2014, directed the petitioner to produce all documents relied upon during the departmental inquiry, along with the Model Standing Orders. Subsequently, by order dated 09.01.2024, the learned Labour Court held that the departmental inquiry conducted against the respondent workman was legal and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

2.3. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application below Exhibit 91, requesting to issue of summons to Viththal Biradar, a co-worker of the respondent, to depose as a witness on behalf of the workman. The said application was opposed by the present petitioner on the ground that the said witness was neither examined nor called upon for deposition by the respondent during the departmental inquiry, nor was he examined by the inquiry officer during the proceedings. It was further contended that since the Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 22:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6946/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined learned Labour Court had already held the departmental inquiry to be legal and valid, no further evidence was required to be adduced for adjudication of the dispute, particularly in view of the respondent workman's admission of guilt.

2.4. The learned Labour Court, by order dated 06.12.2024, allowed the application filed below Exhibit 91 and issued a witness summons to the co-employee, namely, Viththal Biradar. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed another application below Exhibit 96, seeking to impose restrictions on the examination of witness Viththal Biradar, specifically to restrain him from deposing or being examined in relation to the misconduct allegedly committed by the workman. However, the said application was also rejected by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 17.01.2025.

2.5. Challenging the orders dated 06.12.2024 and 17.01.2025 the present petition is filed by the employer.

3. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Keyur Gandhi for Gandhi Law Associates on behalf of the petitioner.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi mainly contended that the departmental inquiry has been held to be legal and valid, and that the respondent had admitted his guilt during the course of the departmental proceedings. Therefore, the only issue to be adjudicated by the learned Labour Court, Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 22:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6946/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined while exercising its powers under Section 11A of the I.D.Act, pertains to the proportionality of the punishment. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi submitted that Viththal Biradar was not examined by the workman as a witness during the departmental proceedings, and therefore, by issuing summons to the said witness, the learned Labour Court has effectively allowed the creation of fresh evidence in relation to the chargesheet, which is impermissible unless the departmental inquiry has been held to be illegal.

4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi submits that once the departmental inquiry has been held to be legal and valid, the learned Labour Court cannot permit fresh evidence to be led in relation to the same charges. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Workmen, reported in AIR (1965) SC 155, to contend that where witnesses were not examined during the departmental proceedings, no fresh evidence can be permitted to be adduced during adjudication before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal.

4.2. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has relied on the decision of this Court in Mehulbhai Ranchhodbhai Makwana vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2009 LawSuit (Guj.) 919, as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Biecco Lawrie Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., reported in Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 22:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6946/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined (2009) 10 SCC 32. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi submits that where a fair opportunity was provided by the inquiry officer, and the respondent failed to present his evidence due to circumstances, no additional evidence or examination of new witnesses should be permitted.

4.3. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi submits that the respondent is attempting to unnecessarily prolong the proceedings. Therefore, the orders passed by the learned Labour Court below Exhibits 91 and 96 should be set aside, and the petition should be allowed.

5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was serving as a Grade T5 Fireman when the alleged chargesheet was issued on 07.07.2001. Upon reviewing the inquiry papers, it is also undisputed that the petitioner admitted guilt, and based on this admission, the inquiry officer found the respondent guilty of the charges. Consequently, the dismissal order was passed by the petitioner authority on 27.11.2001.

6. The Reference challenging the dismissal order is currently at the stage of the respondent-workman's evidence. It is also undisputed that the departmental proceedings were deemed legal and valid as per the order passed below Exhibit 16.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6946/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined

7. The moot question that arises before this Court is: When the legality and validity of the inquiry have been upheld, what powers does the learned Labour Court possess under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act? At this stage, it is necessary to refer to Section 11A, which is reproduced hereinafter:

"11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.--Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require:

Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 22:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6946/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined matter."

8. On referring the said provision more particularly proviso wherein it is specified that the learned labour Court would rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter. To ascertain the meaning of fresh evidence, this Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Workmen Of M/S Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co.Of India (Pvt.) Limit, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 813 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:

"48-49 We are not inclined to accept the above contention of Mr. Deshmukh. The Proviso specifies matters which the Tribunal shall take into account as also matters which it shall not. The expression 'materials on record', occurring in the Proviso, in our opinion, cannot be confined only to the materials which were available at the domestic enquiry. On the other hand, the 'materials on record' in the Proviso must be held to refer to materials on record before the Tribunal. They take in-(1) the evidence taken by the management at the enquiry and the proceedings of the enquiry, or (2) the above evidence and in addition, any further evidence led before the Tribunal, or (3) evidence placed before the Tribunal for the first time in support of the action taken by an employer as well as the evidence adduced by the workmen contra.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6946/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined The above items by and large should be considered to be the 'materials on record' as specified in the Proviso. We are not inclined to limit that expression as meaning only that material that has been placed in a domestic enquiry. The Proviso only confines the Tribunal to the materials on record before it as specified above, when considering the justification or otherwise of the order of discharge or dismissal. It is only on the basis of these materials that the Tribunal is obliged to consider whether the misconduct is proved and the further question whether the proved misconduct justifies the punishment of dismissal or discharge. It also prohibits the Tribunal from taking any fresh evidence either for satisfying itself regarding the misconduct or for altering the punishment. From the Proviso it is not certainly possible to come to the conclusion that when once it is held that an enquiry has not been held or is found to be defective, an order reinstating the workman will have to be made by the Tribunal. Nor does it follow that the Proviso deprives an employer of his right to adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal. The expression 'fresh evidence' has to be read in the context in which it appears namely, as distinguished from the expression 'materials on record'. If so read, the Proviso does not present any difficulty at all."

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6946/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined

9. As held by the Apex Court in the above decision, this Court is of the view that the proviso does not deprive the parties from adducing the evidence for the first time before the Tribunal as held by the Apex Court in the above case, the expression (fresh evidence) has to be read in context in which it appears mainly, as distinguished from the expression material on record. The departmental inquiry would be in two phases in first phase the stage of notice till the evidence would cover and the second stage would cover the findings on the basis of the evidence.

10. So far as the legality and validity of the inquiry upheld by the learned Labour Court is concerned, it is based on compliance with the principles of natural justice. With a view to determine whether the findings are perverse or not, the adjudicating authority has to satisfy itself, one way or the other, regarding the misconduct, the appropriateness of the punishment, and the relief, if any, to be granted to the workman.

11. This Court is of the view that the proviso to Section 11A of the I.D.Act does not take away the right of the workman to adduce evidence on the grounds of bias or victimization. While exercising powers under Section 11A of the I.D.Act, the learned Tribunal is competent to hold that the punishment imposed is not justified, particularly if the misconduct alleged and found proved is of such a nature that it does not warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal or discharge. In order to arrive at such a conclusion, the learned Tribunal is required to reappraise Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 22:25:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6946/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined the evidence independently. Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act confers wide powers upon the learned Tribunal to examine the evidence and satisfy itself as to whether the punishment imposed is just, fair, and proportionate.

12. This Court has referred the decisions rendered by the learned advocate for the petitioner, however, none of the decisions cover the issue involved in the present case hence, the said decisions are not applicable in the facts of the present case.

13. In that background, this Court is of the view that no error has been committed by the learned Labour Court in allowing the application filed below Exhibit 91. Additionally, this Court notes that though the present petition challenging the order dated December 2024 was filed in March 2025, it remained under Office Objection and has only been circulated today, as the matter before the learned Labour Court is scheduled for examination of the witness on 09.05.2025. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, as he would have full opportunity to cross- examine the said witness. Hence, on this ground also, the application filed below Exhibit 91 does not warrant interference.

14. Resultantly, the present petition, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.

(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 22:25:46 IST 2025