The Management Of Mother Dairy, ... vs Shri P.K. Kaushal S/O Shri Satya ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 1264 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. This writ petition challenges the order of the labour court which, inter alia, held that domestic enquiry held by the petitioner against the respondent No. 1-workman was neither fair nor proper, same was not in accordance with principles of natural justice and the said enquiry was set aside. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-Management filed the present writ petition.

2. Mr. Nayar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the labour court erred in nor appreciating that the exhibits I to VI, which were filed before the enquiry officer were neither relied upon by the enquiry officer nor were taken into consideration by the enquiry officer. Page-69 of the paper book deals with exhibits which were taken on record by the enquiry officer, which are the statements of S/Shri Gandhi addressed to A.M.(P)-Exhibit-I, K.S. Chauhan addressed to A.M.(P) dated 10.2.1978-Exhibit-II, K S Chauhan addressed to Transport Officer dated 10.2.1978-Exhibit III, P K Kaushal addressed to General Manager, dated 10.2.1978-Exhibit-IV, P K. Kaushal addressed to A.M.(P) dated 10.2.1978-Exhibit-V and lastly, statement of G B Singh addressed to General Manager dated 13.2.1978-Exhibit-VI.

3. The main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner was that it was not necessary for the enquiry officer to have supplied the copies of the same to the workman as it was not necessary to supply everything which was filed before the enquiry officer. Once the enquiry officer has not taken into consideration the said exhibits into consideration for giving his finding on the enquiry. It was further contended that said exhibits were neither relied upon nor material documents which could have adversely affected the right of the workman and in no way workman has been prejudiced. Mr. Nayar has also cited Krishna Chandra Tandon v. The Union of India . Mr. Nayar has further contended that the said exhibits were internal nothings and, therefore, it was not obligatory on the part of the enquiry officer to have supplied the copies of the same to the respondent-workman. In support of his arguments, Mr. Nayar has also cited Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India and R S. Dass v. Union of India .

4. On the other hand, Mr. Daljinder Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has contended that exhibits were taken into consideration by the enquiry officer and these were the statements made by the said officers who were working with the petitioner and who have deposed as witnesses against the workman and, therefore, these exhibits were relevant documents and non-supply of the same to the workman has affected his right of effective defense and principles of natural justice have been violated as no reasonable hearing was given to the respondent-workman and non-grant of reasonable opportunity vitiates the enquiry. In support of his contentions he has cited Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police and Ors. 1998(9) Supreme 452.

5. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law that those documents and material which are not relevant or on which enquiry officer has not relied upon, are not to be necessarily supplied to the workman. Supreme Court in Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India (supra) has held that:-

".....However, it is not necessary that each and every document must be supplied to the delinquent government servant facing the charges instead only material and relevant documents are necessary to be supplied to him....."

6. Similarly, in Krishna Chandra Tandon v. The Union of India (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court was that:-

"...Inter-departmental communications between officers preliminary to the holding of enquiry have really no importance unless the Enquiry Officer wants to reply on them for his conclusions..."

7. The reliance placed on R S Dass v. Union of India (supra) is mis-placed as that authority in no way helps the case of the petitioner. The basic concept of a domestic enquiry is to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing so that delinquent employee could effectively defend his case. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the exhibits I to VI, which were the statements of S/Shri Gandhi, K S Chauhan, P K Kaushal and G B singh, were not in relation to the enquiry, although, these exhibits were not filed before the labour court. Same had been filed in this Court and from the perusal of the same, it can be seen that the statements have been made by the aforesaid persons in relation to the charge levelled against the respondent. Not only this even the enquiry officer in his report has taken into consideration these documents. At page-84 of the paper book, which is the enquiry report, this is how the enquiry officer has observed:-

".....The Exhibits were also deposited by Shri P. Dayal."

8. These exhibits, which were deposited by Shri P. Dayal, were the statements as detailed above. Further in the report, enquiry officer at page-87 of the paper book, has observed:-

"After considering the evidence in the enquiry....."

9. Mr. Nayar tried to argue that 'after considering the evidence in the enquiry' would not include the said exhibits. To my mid this argument is totally fallacious. Once the enquiry officer has observed that 'after considering the evidence in the enquiry' not only included the statements but any other material which was placed on record and definitely documents i.e. exhibits I to VI, which were placed on record by Shri P. Dayal with the enquiry officer, were considered by the enquiry officer and non-supply of the same has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice.

Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police and Ors. (supra) held:-

"Apart from the above, Rule 16(3) has to be considered in the light of the provisions contained in Article 311(2) of the Constitution to fine out whether it purports to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the delinquent. Reasonable opportunity contemplated by Article 311(2) means "Hearing" in accordance with the principles of natural justice....."

10. Following the ratio of Supreme Court in the case Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police and Ors. (supra) and in view of the observations of the enquiry officer that he has taken these exhibits into consideration and in view of the fact that enquiry officer himself has stated that copies of these exhibits were not given to the workman, principles of natural justice have been violated as reasonable hearing has not been provided to the respondent-workman. I do not see any infirmity with the order passed by the labour court. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/=.