Delhi High Court
Rattan Lal Gupta vs Management Of Birla Textile Mills ... on 19 January, 2007
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 17.2.2003 whereby the Labour Court VIII, Karkardoom Courts, Delhi answered the reference against the petitioner holding that the termination of service of petitioner was neither illegal nor unjustified.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was working as a Beam Carrier in Dying Department of the respondent No. 1. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 9th November, 1976 in respect of his misconduct of 29th October, 1976. An enquiry was conducted into the misconduct, and after the report of Enquiry Officer that the misconduct was proved Disciplinary Authority passed an order of removal from service. The petitioner challenged his dismissal and the following dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court:
Whether the dismissal from service of Shri Rattan Lal is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
3. The Labour Court after considering the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the enquiry against the petitioner was held in a proper and fair manner and the punishment awarded to the petitioner was not disproportionate to the misconduct and passed an award against the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the award on the ground that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse and reasonable opportunity was not given to the workman. The workman was not allowed to participate in the enquiry proceedings. The workman was not associated at the time of awarding the punishment and the management violated the provisions of certified standing orders. The Labour Court did not consider the evidence adduced before it and passed an award contrary to the settled principles of law. Even if it was considered that the charge was proved against the workman and the enquiry was held fair and proper, the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the misconduct of the petitioner.
4. I have gone through the award and perused the documents filed by the petitioner. It would be seen from the record that on 29th October, 1976, he was asked to carry a short beam No. P179/4042 at 2.10 p.m. at Loom No. 918 where the beam was to be used. But instead of carrying this beam to the loom he put the beam near gutter No. 4 of Loom No. 108/106 due to which Loom No. 918 could not function for two hours and it resulted into loss of production and after much persuasion he put the beam at the concerned loom at 3.55 p.m. Similarly, on 30th October 1976 he was asked to carry the beam at 8.00 p.m. at loom No. 970 but he deliberately did not carry this beam to that loom. He was again asked to carry the beam at 9.10 p.m. at loom No. 357. This time he put the beam on the trolley but did not carry the same to the loom. On 1.11.1976 he was to carry a beam to loom No. 451 at 5.05 p.m. but he deliberately delayed in carrying that beam and put the beam at the loom at 6.30 p.m. Further he put the beam at 9.20 p.m. at the trolley which was to be taken to loom No. 893, but left the beam in the trolley itself and left the workplace before closing hours of his duty and absented from duty. A show-cause notice was issued to him for giving his explanation to his above misconducts. He denied the allegation and made counter allegations that the charge-sheet was issued to him because he belonged to lower caste. He had several time touched the glass of Mr. D.V. Jain, who scolded him on this account. When he reported the matter to Manager Mr. B.R. Ghai, he was treatened with termination.
5. The Labour Court had considered the entire enquiry proceedings and found that seven witnesses were examined during the enquiry and they were all cross-examined by the defense assistant of the workman. Mr. D.V. Jain and Mr. B.R. Ghai were also examined as witnesses but not a single suggestion was given to either of the two that charge-sheet had been issued to him because they got annoyed with the workman as he touched the glass of Mr. D.V. Jain. The Labour Court thus, came to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer rightly came to the conclusion that the charges were proved. The Labour Court observed that considering the conduct of the petitioner, the punishment of dismissal was not shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved.
6. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the punishment was disproportionate to the charges. The petitioner could have been awarded lesser punishment and should have been treated on leave on the days he refused to work or did not work or he should have been given break in service; the punishment of dismissal was highly disproportionate.
7. The workman was appointed by the respondent for a particular work. He was a link in the chain of production and every time he refused to install the beam at the loom, the production suffered. This attitude of the workman continued for several days. He was charge-sheeted only after the management found that he was not improving and was not taking interest in the work and was leaving the workplace without intimation, keeping the beams in trolley and not fixing the beam at the looms. Instead of explaining his conduct or giving explanation about his attitude, the workman made counter allegations against the management stating that since he was of lower caste (Chamar) two of the officials of the management got annoyed with him because of touching the glass of Mr. D.V. Jain by him. If the workman had stood up to these allegations and brought evidence on record before the Enquiry Officer in respect of his counter allegations, one could understand that workman had valid defense but strangely enough the workman did not even give suggestion to Mr. D.V. Jain and Mr. B.R. Ghai in respect of his counter allegations. Where a workman instead of answering the charge-sheet makes false counter allegations against the management thinking that 'offence is the best defense' he is bound to loose the confidence of the management. The relationship of employer employee is a relationship of confidence.
8. An employee in the production chain is like an important part of a production machine. A single defective part can bring the machine to standstill and make it inoperative. There is no option before the operator of the machine but to replace the part if the part cannot be corrected. In the present case the workman was one of the links in the chain of production he refused to operate and do his part of work resulting into loss of production. When he was asked to explain his conduct instead of explaining his conduct he made false counter allegations of such a nature which were dangerous for the management.
9. Considering the nature of the allegations made by the workman and his misconduct, I consider that the management was bound to loose confidence in the workman and looking at his misconduct, deliberate non-working and making of counter allegations, the punishment awarded by the management could not be said to be disproportionate.
10. I find no perversity in the award. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.
