Delhi High Court
Sewak Ram S/O Shri Harcharan vs Hotel Vasant Continental on 30 January, 2004
Author: M B Lokur
Bench: M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 29th October 2001 as well as an order dated 2nd June 2003 passed by the learned Labour Court in ID No. 160 of 1990. By the first impugned order, it was held by the learned Industrial Tribunal that the Petiti oner had committed misconduct, for which he was dismissed from service and by the second impugned order it was held that since the misconduct was established against the Petitioner, the termination of his services was valid in law.
2.The Petitioner was issued a charge sheet by the Respondent-management on 25th April 1989 wherein it was alleged, inter alia, that the Petitioner had used obscene and unparliamentary language against his superior officer and had also given him two blows on his face without any provocation. A domestic inquiry was held against the Petitioner in which he was found guilty of the allegations made against him. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service. The Petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the following terms were referred for adjudication: --
"Whether the services of Shri Sewak Ram have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?"
3.On the basis of the pleadings, a preliminary issue was framed by the learned Tribunal on 29th April 1992 to the effect whether the Respondent-management held a legal and valid inquiry against the Petitioner in accordance with the principles of natural justice. By an order dated 22nd March 1997, the issue was decided against the Respondent-management. Consequently, on 14th May 1997 the following issues were framed to enable the parties to lead their evidence to establish their respective case: --
"1. Whether Shri Sewak Ram was not a 'workman' as defined in section 2(s) of the I.D. Act?
2.Whether the workman committed the misconduct for which he was dismissed from services?
3.To what relief, if any, is the complainant entitled?"
4.Issue No.1 was decided in favor of the Petitioner and it was held that he was a workman. As regards Issue No.2, the learned Tribunal considered the evidence on record and held that on the fateful day the Petitioner was present in the kitchen when the incident is said to have taken place. It was also held that the Petitioner was on duty at the relevant time. The learned Tribunal assessed and weighed the evidence of the Respondent-management and found it to be reliable.
5.On the other hand, the case set up by the Petitioner was that he was being victimized because he was a member of the Hotel Mazdoor Union and was taking active part in trade union activities. The learned Tribunal found that the evidence of the Petition er in this regard was quite shaky. Apart from that, the Petitioners cross-examination was deferred so that he could produce necessary documents regarding his membership of the Union but the Petitioner failed to do so. In fact, the Petitioner was not ab e to produce any evidence with regard to his trade union activities. On this basis, the learned Tribunal held that there was no reason for the Respondent-management to create false evidence regarding the misconduct of the Petitioner.
6.The learned Tribunal also found that the Petitioner had stated in his affidavit Exh. WW1/A dated 25th January 1999 that he was unemployed after his dismissal from service. However, the Respondent-management had produced evidence to show that the Petitioner was in fact employed. The Respondent-management produced his employer in the witness box but the Petitioner did not cross-examine the witness in this regard and also failed to lead any evidence to rebut the case of the Respondent-management, despie an opportunity having been given for this purpose. The learned Tribunal took adverse notice of the false deposition of the Petitioner.
7.Taking all the above factors into consideration, the learned Tribunal concluded in its order dated 29th October 2001 that the misconduct as alleged against the Petitioner was proved.
8.Learned counsel for the Petitioner assailed the findings of the learned Tribunal as being contrary to the evidence on record. However, I find that what learned counsel is suggesting is that the entire evidence be reappraised. Unfortunately, this cann to be done in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal are essentially findings of fact and unless there is some perversity shown in these findings, this Court should not be expected to inter ere in the conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to show any such perversity. On the contrary, the evidence on record clearly points to the fact that the incident as alleged did take place nd that the Petitioner was guilty of using obscene and unparliamentary language against his superior and also giving him blows on the face without any provocation.
9.The third issue framed by the learned Tribunal was then taken up for consideration and decided by the second impugned order dated 2nd June 2003. The misconduct against the Petitioner having been proved, there was no option but to hold that considering the severity of the misconduct, only the punishment of dismissal could have been imposed against the Petitioner. I find no error having been committed by the learned Tribunal in this regard.
10. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
