M/S Sharda Ispat Limited, Through ... vs Pralhad Sudam Paunikar
2018 Latest Caselaw 1140 Bom

                                          1                                                      wp508.12.odt



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                          WRIT PETITION NO.508 OF 2012

1]     M/s. Sharda Ispat Limited,
       T-1/1, M.I.D.C., Hingna Road,
       Nagpur, Tahsil & District-
       Nagpur (Maharashtra State),
       Through its Director.

2]     M/s. Sharda Ispat Limited,
       T-1/1, M.I.D.C., Hingna Road,
       Nagpur, Tahsil & District-
       Nagpur (Maharashtra State),
       Through its Personnel Manager.                                         ..Petitioners

                               .. Versus ..

Pralhad Sudam Paunikar,
Aged-Major, Occupation-Service,
Resident of C/o. Babulal Sontakke,
Jaytala, Nagpur, Tahsil & District-Nagpur
(Maharashtra State).                                                          ..Respondent


                      ..........
Shri A.N. Ansari, Advocate for petitioners,
None for respondent though served.
                      ..........

                                              CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

DATED : JANUARY 30, 2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1] Heard Advocate Shri A.N. Ansari for petitioners.

2] By impugned judgment dated 12.8.2011, the Industrial

Court allowed Revision [ULP] No.138/2008 filed by respondent-

employee and after observing that Labour Court did not

2 wp508.12.odt

appreciate evidence adduced before it at all charge-wise, it

remanded back the matter to Labour Court.

3] Petitioners-employer questioned this order of remand in

present petition. This Court, on 13.9.2012, while issuing Rule in

the matter, granted interim relief. Thus, the proceedings before

Labour Court in Complaint [ULP] No.412/1994 came to be

stayed. Complaint [ULP] No.412/1994 was filed by respondent

challenging his termination from services from 10.6.1994. That

enquiry, if any, was conducted exparte. In written statement,

petitioners-employer pointed out misconduct, service of show

cause notice and then absence of respondent from duty. They

also claimed that departmental enquiry was then conducted and

as charges were established, punishment was imposed. Labour

Court framed preliminary issue and on 27.6.2006 declared

enquiry to be unfair and invalid. Employer, therefore, examined

witnesses to prove misconduct.

4] The Industrial Court has found that there is no charge-

wise consideration and my scrutiny of judgment delivered by

Labour Court reveals that said finding is proper.

5]             The Labour Court mentions that employer has proved 




                                      3                                                      wp508.12.odt

misconduct under Clause 24 (h) (k) (l) and (x) of the Model

Standing Order. It also holds that misconduct under Clause 24

(a), 24 (d) and 24 (f) is also proved. In absence of any formal

charge-sheet, it is difficult for anybody to comprehend what

Labour Court had said in relation to a particular charge. Most of

paragraphs in its judgment only narrate submissions of

respondent or of complainant.

6] Learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon

paragraph 15 to urge that their misconduct under Clause 24 (a) is

found to be proved. In entire paragraph 15, there is no reference

to clause 24 (a). Not only this, except for mentioning

examination-in-chief of PW-1 and PW-2 that too as narrated by

counsel for present petitioners, the Labour Court has not referred

to cross examination at all. It has only observed that though

these witnesses PW Nos. 1 and 2 were cross examined, they stood

test of cross-examination and nothing helpful to the complainant

has come out in cross examination. What is that cross-

examination, is not apparent. Petitioners have also not made that

cross-examination available for perusal of this Court.

7] In paragraph 25 at the end, conclusion is respondents

have proved all misconducts against complainant. Mentions of

4 wp508.12.odt

evidence of PW No.3 Surendra Prasad begin thereafter. In

paragraph 26, evidence of PW No.3 Surendra Prasad has been

looked into. At the end of that paragraph, it is recorded "it is,

therefore, submitted that the previous service record of the

complainant is also not satisfactory. The complainant is, therefore,

rightly dismissed from service and the dismissal may be uphold and

the complaint may be dismissed". In paragraph 28 again, after

mentioning relevance of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1948,

witnesses Shri Raju Khanal, Surendra Prasad Singh and

Chintaman Pardhe are mentioned. Court mentions that Shri

Singh and Shri Zha offered one letter to complainant, which he

refused. It then observes that Shri Zha, whose name has been

referred, was not at all examined. It also found that words put in

mouth of complainant or his act of using those words are absent

in Exh.56 i.e. statement of Shri Khanal. Then there is reference to

Exh.57, which is evidence of Surendra Prasad Singh. In

paragraph 29, it is mentioned that his evidence is not supported

by Shri Raju Khanal. Labour Court also records that there is no

evidence about incident dated 22.3.1994 and he is tutored

witness. It has also recorded that there is no compliant of this

witness on record. However, no conclusion is drawn after this

5 wp508.12.odt

narration and impact of this discussion is again missing. Why

these two witnesses were examined and which charge was to be

proved through them is not clear. Effect of this evidence on such

charge is not appreciated. As all charges are held to be proved by

Labour Court, by implication, charges proposed to be established

through Shri Khanal and Shri Surendra Prasad Singh are also held

to be established. This is possible if there is any other evidence in

support of those charges. That other evidence does not find

mention anywhere in entire judgment of Labour Court.

8] Perusal of judgment delivered by Labour Court reveals

that without properly understanding the controversy and without

understanding charge/misconduct, the judgment has been drawn

mechanically. It does not show proper perspective and

application of mind.

9] In this situation, Industrial Court was justified in

remanding the matter back to Labour Court for due evaluation of

evidence. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Writ

Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE Gulande