Allahabad High Court
U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Vikas Tomar And Another on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 01.03.2023
Delivered on 14.03.2023
Court No. - 76
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26576 of 2021
Petitioner :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Respondent :- Vikas Tomar And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gopal Narain Srivastava,Shobhna Srivastava
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Present writ petition is against impugned award dated 02.04.2021 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. at Saharanpur in Adj. Case No. 12 of 2014 whereby reference was considered in favour of workman (respondent No.1) and against employer (petitioner Corporation) and set aside order of termination with further direction for reinstatement and 25% back wages.
2. Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner Corporation has submitted that Labour Court has decided issue that whether domestic inquiry was fair or not in favour of petitioner, however, while considering the issue no. 3 in regard to quantum of penalty has returned a contrary finding that domestic inquiry was against principles of natural justice and it cannot be considered to be a fair inquiry.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that there are two separate procedures qua to different findings which ought to have been taken by Labour Court. In case domestic inquiry was held to be unfair, the employer has liberty to place evidence to prove charges, however, it was not the case in hand. Alternatively, if inquiry was held proper, the Labour Court could consider whether penalty was disproportionate or not as well as he may also look into the evidence led before Inquiry Officer to make out that whether it was sufficient to prove case or not. However, the Labour Court has mixed both contingencies in the impugned order.
4. Per contra, Sri Gopal Narain Srivastava, learned counsel for workman has submitted that Labour Court has followed correct procedure and since it was held that inquiry was fair, the Labour Court looked into the evidence and found it not to be sufficient to prove charge and accordingly set aside the punishment and passed an order for reinstatement and 25% back wages. There was no illegality in impugned order. He placed reliance upon judgments of Supreme Court in Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Management and others, (1973) 1 SCC 813 and Mavji C. Lakum vs. Central Bank of India, (2008) 12 SCC 726 wherein the Supreme Court held that -:
"23. In this backdrop when we see unusually long judgment of the learned Single Judge, it comes out that the learned Single Judge held firstly that the Tribunal had exceeded its powers vested in it under the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Judge, as regards Section 11-A, after quoting the same, observed:
"Though the Tribunal was equipped with the power to come to its own conclusion whether in a given case the imposition of punishment of discharge or dismissal from the service is justified. It is for that purpose that the Tribunal is authorised to go into the evidence that has been adduced before the inquiry officer in detail and find out whether the punishment of discharge or dismissal is commensurate with the nature of charges proved against the delinquent."
So far the finding of the learned Single Judge appears to be correct. However, the whole thrust of the judgment has changed merely because the Industrial Tribunal had found the inquiry to be fair and proper. The learned Judge seems to be of the opinion that if the inquiry is held to be fair and proper, then the Industrial Tribunal cannot go into the question of evidence or the quantum of punishment. We are afraid that that is not the correct law. Even if the inquiry is found to be fair, that would be only a finding certifying that all possible opportunities were given to the delinquent and the principles of natural justice and fair play were observed. That does not mean that the findings arrived at were essentially the correct findings. If the Industrial Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the findings could not be supported on the basis of the evidence given or further comes to the conclusion that the punishment given is shockingly disproportionate, the Industrial Tribunal would still be justified in reappreciating the evidence and/or interfering with the quantum of punishment. There can be no dispute that power under Section 11-A has to be exercised judiciously and the interference is possible only when the Tribunal is not satisfied with the findings and further concludes that punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. Besides, the Tribunal has to give reasons as to why it is not satisfied either with the findings or with the quantum of punishment and that such reason should not be fanciful or whimsical but there should be good reasons.".
5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused record.
6. In order to consider rival submissions, I have carefully perused the impugned order. The Labour Court has framed issue no.1 that whether domestic inquiry was fair and impartial and gave a specific finding on the basis of pleadings and arguments that domestic inquiry was impartial and valid and principles of natural justice were complied with.
7. Thereafter, the Labour Court proceeded to consider other issues i.e. whether conclusion of inquiry report was legally justifiable and that punishment was proportionate or not and held that it was not proved that workman/conductor has intentionally not issued the tickets to passengers. The Labour Court also took note that in the very beginning of journey, workman/conductor felt unconscious and slept and while considering the issue of proportionate of punishment has also held that principles of natural justice was not followed in domestic inquiry and as such it was not fair and valid and accordingly, set aside the order passed in domestic inquiry with further direction for reinstatement with 25% back wages.
8. Contrary stands taken by the Labour Court in regard to issue whether the domestic inquiry was fair or not has led to ambiguity in further approach of Labour Court. Since there are different procedures to be adopted on the basis of outcome of said issue i.e. in case inquiry was held to be unfair, the employer can lead evidence to prove the charges whereas if the inquiry was held proper, Labour Court can consider the proportionate of penalty as well as also looked into evidence whether it was sufficient to prove charges against workman or not.
9. Since the Labour Court was not clear whether the domestic inquiry was fair or not till the end of order, therefore, further approach becomes defective and consideration to other issues also become defective.
10. In view of above, this Court has no option but to set aside the impugned award dated 02.04.2021 and to remand the matter back to Labour Court, Saharanpur with a direction that issue in regard to whether domestic inquiry was fair or not has to be decided again afresh and only on the basis of decision on said issue, the further course shall be adopted by Labour Court as discussed in Neeta Kaplish vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another, (1991) 1 SCC 517, Mavji C. Lakum vs. Central Bank of India, (2008) 12 SCC 726 and M/s Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rampur and another, (Writ C No. 8085 of 2021 decided on 24.02.2023) and Labour Court shall take all endeavour to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from today.
11. Petition stands disposed of with above observations.
Order Date :- March 14, 2023
Nirmal Sinha
[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]
