M/S Manitou Equipment India ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 16664 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116627
 
Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17861 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- M/S Manitou Equipment India Private Limited
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Mehra,Vivek Ratan Agrawal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Man Mohan Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Atul Mehra and Sri Vivek Ratan Agrawal for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent NO.s 1, 2 and 4 and Sri Man Mohan Singh for respondent No.3

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned award was passed at the behest of two workers while only one of the workers has been arrayed as a respondent and prays that he may be permitted to implead Sri Jitendra Singh as respondent No.5.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents including Sri Man Mohan Singh do not object to the prayer made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to incorporate Sri Jitendra Singh as respondent No.5 in the array of the respondents in the memo of the petition during the course of day.

4. With the consent of the parties the petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.

5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 21.2.2023 published on 17.4.2023 whereby the claim of respondent No.s 3 to 5 - workman has been allowed and the workman has been directed to be reinstated in service along with back wages.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner-company  i.e. M/s. Manitou Equipment India Private Limited is a manufacturer  of heavy equipment  consisting of telehandlers, backhoeloaders, skid, steer loaders, aerial work platforms etc. for various sectors including construction, infrastructure, quarrying, mining, shipping, transportation, refineries, energy, manufacturing industries etc. Its factory/plant is situated at plot No.22, Udyog Vihar Greater Nodia, Post Office Surajpur Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P.  The facts leading to filing the present petition is that respondent No.s 3 to 5 workman were appointed in 2006 on the post of Assembler and had worked continuously. It is alleged that on 7..8.2019 respondent No.s 3 to 5 indulged in major and gross misconduct of misbehaving with their Supervisor by assaulting/manhandling him and threatening/abusing him in derogatory and un-parliamentary language while on duty besides misbehavior and with regard to aforesaid misconduct  respondent No.s 3 to 5 were suspended from service on 14.8.2009 and were served with charge sheet on 19.8.2019.

7. Another dispute between the trade union of the petitioner wherein conciliation proceedings were already underway before the Conciliation Officer/ Assistant Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Gautam Buddha Nagar when the proceedings against the respondents were initiated. It is further stated that the respondents -workmen  did not file any reply  to the charge sheet and the domestic inquiry was conducted ex-parte and the charges against the respondents were proved and consequently they were dismissed from the services by means of order dated 3.3.2020.

8. It is further stated that considering that in the matter conciliation proceedings were pending the petitioner moved an application under Section 6 E (2) (b) of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Tribunals Act, 1947 before the Conciliation Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner, U.P. and submitted that the said application was never decided or not disapproved by the said authority and respondent No.s 3 to 5 raised industrial dispute with regard to their dismissal order dated 3.3.2020 before the Labour Court, U.P. Noida under Section 4K of Industrial Disputes Act. The said case was registered as Adjudication Case No.337/221. The petitioner was duly served the notice and put in appearance and opposed the claim of the respondents-workmen, and evidence was filed by the petitioner and after statements were recorded by both the parties and also having cross examined the witnesses appearing before the Labour Court, by means of the impugned award  the order of dismissal was held to be illegal and arbitrary and the claim of respondent No.s 3 to 5 workmen was allowed with a direction to the petitioner to reinstate them in service along with back-wages.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said award has submitted that at the outset while filing their objections to the claim they had informed the Labour Court that in case the Labour Court comes to a conclusion that there was defect in domestic inquiry then they may be permitted to lead evidence in support of the charges and they may be allowed to prove the charge  before the Labour Court itself. In this regard in paragraph 3 of the written statement filed by the opposite parties it has been shown to demonstrate the said facts. It has been submitted that once the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that there was infirmity in the domestic inquiry conducted by the petitioner then it was incumbent upon the Labour Court to give opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in support of the charges leveled against the respondent workmen. It is stated that the Labour Court merely held that the domestic inquiry was illegal and arbitrary and set aside the domestic inquiry and granted relief as claimed by the workmen and reinstated them with back wages.

10. In support of the submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of M.L. Singla  Vs. Punjab National Bank and another, 2019 (160)FLR 80, specially paragraph No.s 26,27, 33, 34, 44 and 45 which reads as under:-

 "26) The Labour Court was then under legal obligation to give such opportunity and then decide the   question   as   to   whether   respondent   No.1­Bank was able to prove the charges against the appellant on merits or not. 

27) If   the   charges   against   the   appellant   were   held proved,   the   next   question   to   be   examined   was   in relation   to   the   proportionality   of   the   punishment given to the appellant....

33) In other words, the Labour Court failed to see that   it   would   have   assumed   the   jurisdiction   to examine   the   charges   on   the   merits   only   after   the domestic enquiry had been held illegal and secondly, the   employer   had   sought   permission   to   adduce evidence   on   merits   to   prove   the   charges   and   on permission being granted he had led the evidence.

34)The fourth error was award of 50% back wages to   the   appellant.   While   awarding   50%   back   wages, the Labour Court did not examine the question as to whether the appellant had pleaded and proved with the   aid   of   evidence   that   he   was   not   gainfully employed after his dismissal from service....

44) This   Court   while   answering   the   aforesaid question   held   that   it  is for  the  employer  to  ask

for such opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charge of misconduct and once such prayer is made in any form, i.e., orally or by application or in the pleading, the same cannot be denied to the employer. It has to be granted to enable him to prove the misconduct. This Court further held that no duty is cast upon the Court to offer such opportunity to the employer suo motu, if he does not ask for it. In other words, he has to ask for from the Court by any of the three modes mentioned above.

45) While examining the aforementioned question, this Court also took note of several decision of this Court wherein this Court examined the questions in extenso, namely where dismissal is based on enquiry, or no enquiry or illegal enquiry, how the Court should decide the legality of dismissal. We have mentioned these cases in Para 41."

11. He has further relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Kurukshetra University Vs. Prithvi Singh, 2018-II-LLJ-257 (SC) specially in paragraph No.s 16 to 24 of the judgment which are reproduced as under:-

"16. The legal position, in our view, is succinctly explained by this Court (two-Judge Bench) in the case of Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. vs. Ludh Budh Singh, 1972(3) SCR 29=1972(Lab IC) 573 in Propositions 4, 5 and 6 in the following words:

"(4) When a domestic enquiry has been held by the management and the management relies on the same, it is open to the latter to request the Tribunal to try the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and also ask for an opportunity to adduce evidence before the Tribunal, if the finding on the preliminary issue is against the  management. However elaborate and cumbersome the procedure may be, under such circumstances, it is open to the Tribunal to deal, in the first instance, as a preliminary issue the validity of the domestic enquiry. If its finding on the preliminary issue is in favour of the management, then no additional evidence need be cited by the management. But, if the finding on the preliminary issue is against the management, the Tribunal will have to give the employer an opportunity to cite additional evidence and also give a similar opportunity to the employee to lead evidence contra, as the request to adduce evidence had been made by the management to the Tribunal during the course of the proceedings and before the trial has come to an end. When the preliminary issue is decided against the management and the latter leads evidence before the Tribunal, the position, under such circumstances, will be, that the management is deprived of the benefit of having the finding of the domestic Tribunal being accepted as prima facie proof of the alleged misconduct. On the other hand, the management will have to prove, by adducing proper evidence, that the workman is guilty of misconduct and that the action taken by it is proper. It will not be just and fair either to the management or to the workman that the Tribunal should refuse to take evidence and thereby ask the management to make a further application, after holding a proper enquiry, and deprive the workman of the benefit of the Tribunal itself being satisfied, on evidence adduced before it, that he was or was not guilty of the alleged misconduct.

(5) The management has got a right to attempt to sustain its order by adducing independent evidence before the Tribunal. But the management should avail itself of the said opportunity by making a suitable request to the Tribunal before the proceedings are closed. If no such opportunity has been  availed of, or asked for by the management, before the proceedings are closed, the employer can make no grievance that the Tribunal did not provide such an opportunity. The Tribunal will have before it only the enquiry proceedings and it has to decide whether the proceedings have been held properly and the findings recorded therein are also proper.

(6) If the employer relies only on the domestic enquiry and does not simultaneously lead additional evidence or ask for an opportunity during the pendency of the proceedings to adduce such evidence, the duty of the Tribunal is only to consider the validity of the domestic enquiry as well as the finding recorded therein and decide the matter. If the Tribunal decides that the domestic enquiry has not been held properly, it is not its function to invite suo motu the employer to adduce evidence before it to justify the action taken by it."

17. The aforesaid principle of law was quoted with approval in Shankar's case (supra) by a Bench of three Judges in Para 23 observing, ".....After an exhaustive review of the decisions bearing on the question and affirming the ratio in R.K. Jain's case (1972 Lab IC 13) this Court extracted the emerging principles from the review of decisions. Propositions 4, 5 and 6 would be relevant for the present discussion."

18. The aforementioned decisions were extensively discussed by the Constitution Bench in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. vs.  Lakshmidevamma(Smt.) & Anr., 2001 (5) SCC 433 wherein the law laid down in the aforementioned two cases was approved.

19. When we examine the facts of this case in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, we find that the termination of the respondent was by way of punishment because it was based on the adverse findings recorded against the respondent in the domestic enquiry.

20. So the question, which the Labour Court was expected to decide in the first instance as a "preliminary issue", was whether the domestic enquiry held by the appellant (employer) was legal and proper. In other words, the question to be decided by the Labour Court was whether the domestic enquiry held by the appellant was conducted following the principles of natural justice or not.

21. If the domestic enquiry was held legal and proper then the next question which arose for consideration was whether the punishment imposed on the respondent(delinquent employee) was proportionate to the gravity of the charge leveled against him or it called for any interference to award any lesser punishment by exercising the powers under Section 11-A of the ID Act.

22. If the domestic inquiry was held illegal and improper then the next question, which arose for consideration, was whether to allow the appellant (employer) to prove the misconduct/charge before the Labour Court on merits by adducing independent evidence against the respondent (employee). The appellant was entitled to do so after praying for an opportunity to allow them to lead evidence and pleading the misconduct in the written statement. (see- also Para 33 at page 1665/66 of Shankar's case(supra) ).

23. Once the appellant(employer) was able to prove the misconduct/charge before the Labour Court, then it was for the Labour Court to decide as to whether the termination should be upheld or interfered by exercising the powers under Section 11-A of the ID Act by awarding lesser punishment provided a case to that effect on facts is made out by the respondent(employee).

24. We are constrained to observe that first, the Labour Court committed an error in not framing a "preliminary issue" for deciding the legality of domestic enquiry and second, having found fault in the domestic inquiry committed another error when it did not allow the appellant to lead independent evidence to prove the misconduct/charge on merits and straightaway proceeded to hold that it was a case of illegal retrenchment and hence the respondents' termination is bad in law."

12. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a perusal aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court would clearly indicate that once the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the domestic inquiry was illegal and arbitrary then opportunity should have been granted to the employer to lead evidence and prove the charges. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, at the outset, in the written statement offered that he may be permitted to prove the charges before the Labour Court. It is stated that by not permitting the petitioner to adduce evidence the impugned award suffers from manifest illegality and deserve to be set aside.

13. Sri Man Mohan Singh, appearing on behalf of the respondents- workmen has opposed the writ petition. He submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned award. He further submitted that it was open for the petitioner at the outset to offer and lead evidence in support of the charges and the said prayer cannot be made at subsequent stage of the proceeding  before the Labour Court and hence submits that even a perusal of paragraph 3 of the written statement would indicate that the petitioner had not offered to lead evidence and consequently  there is no infirmity in the award and consequently prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

15. The main facts in the present case are not disputed except as to whether the petitioner had offered  to lead evidence before the Labour Court in support of the charges and proved the same before the Labour Court. It is noticed that paragraph 3 of the written statement is as follows:-

"3. That he indulged into gross acts of misconduct and his services were terminated in proper and legal manner after conducting a valid and proper inquiry into the misconduct and the OP shall prove the same before this Hon'ble Court if and when required. Accordingly he is not entitled to seek any relief from the O.P."

16. A perusal of aforesaid averments indicate that the petitioner had shown its inclination  to prove the charges before the Labour Court. It is noticed that it is further willing to offer to lead evidence where the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that domestic inquiry was illegal and arbitrary or conducted in violation of the terms of the agreement of the principles of natural justice.

17. Learned counsel for the respondents, at this stage also, does not dispute aforesaid proposition that offer was made in this regard by the petitioner before the Labour  Court. Once it is noticed that prayer was, in fact, made to offer to lead evidence then duty is cast upon the Labour Court to direct the petitioner to lead evidence and prove the charges before the Labour Court itself.

18. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the Labour Court committed manifest illegally by not directing the petitioner to lead evidence in support of the charges where it is noticed that as per the judgment of Supreme Court once offer has been made to lead evidence before the Labour Court then the duty is cast upon the Labour Court to have directed the petitioner to lead evidence in support of the charges. In view of the above, the impugned award in having failed to grant opportunity to lead evidence is illegal and arbitrary and is accordingly set aside. Considering the fact that much time has already elapsed during pendency of the said award it is expected that the proceedings shall be conducted expeditiously and concluded within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Labour Court.

19. The parties undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the Labour Court. The petitioner shall file all the evidence before the Labour Court along with a certified copy of this order and in case the same is filed then the parties will be allowed to lead evidence and shall be taken on record and it is only after following the procedure prescribed under law the proceedings shall be concluded expeditiously. The parties are directed not to take any unnecessary adjournment during the said course of hearing.

20. The writ petition is, thus, allowed.

Order Date :- 25.5.2023                                             (Alok Mathur, J.)
 
RKM.