Delhi High Court
Mehar Singh vs Cement Manufactures Association on 10 September, 2015
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: September 07, 2015
% Judgment Delivered on: September10 , 2015
+ LPA 61/2010
MEHAR SINGH ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Aggarwal, Advocate.
versus
CEMENT MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Raj Birbal, Sr.Advocate
instructed by Ms.Raavi Birbal,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. Mehar Singh was working as a Driver with the management since
September 01, 1982 when he was charge-sheeted on March 05, 1997 on the
allegation that on February 16, 1997 he was driving the company's car under
the influence of liquor and had hit a Maruti car. In the enquiry conducted
Mehar Singh was found guilty of the charges. Taking into account his past
conduct his services were terminated with effect from November 17, 1997.
2. In the industrial dispute raised Mehar Singh challenged the validity of
the enquiry on three grounds i.e. he was not allowed to be represented by a
lawyer of his choice, enquiry officer was biased and enquiry report was
perverse. Mehar Singh in his claim admitted that though he was not
permitted to engage an advocate of his choice or an office bearer of the
Delhi Labour Union, however he had engaged one Shri Mukesh to represent
him. It was the case of Mehar Singh that Mukesh being middle-passed and
not aware of the technicalities was not able to cross-examine the witnesses
affectively. Referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court the Tribunal
held that it was not necessary to provide an advocate to the charged officer
particularly when the management was also not represented by an advocate.
Further enquiry proceedings revealed that the charged officer had cross-
examined the management witnesses himself and had also examined himself
in defence during the enquiry proceedings. Referring to the evidence it was
noted that the present was not a case of no evidence and no bias could be
demonstrated by the charged officer against the enquiry officer and the
enquiry being not perverse having followed principles of natural justice, the
claim petition was dismissed. The order dated August 21, 2007 passed by
the Labour Court was upheld by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned
order dated July 28, 2009.
3. Before this Court learned counsel for Mehar Singh urges that the
finding of the enquiry officer that Mehar Singh was under the influence of
alcohol is perverse in the absence of any medical/ blood test. Reliance is
placed on 2009 (123) FLR 521 Munna Lal Vs. Union of India. Further the
management claimed insurance qua the damages to the car and in case the
driver was drunk or under the influence of alcohol, no insurance amount
would have been released which further proves that Mehar Singh was not
under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. Referring to the
decision reported in AIR 1973 SC 1227 Workmen of Fire Stone Tyre and
Rubber Stone Corporation of India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Management & Ors. it is
contended that the Labour Court ought to have re-appreciated the evidence
produced before enquiry officer to determine whether the allegations against
Mehar Singh were proved or not and also with regard to the proportionality
of the sentence.
4. Even though in view of the concurrent finding of the fact by the
Labour Court and the learned Single Judge, this Court is not required to look
into the facts, however to satisfy ourselves we note that the material on
record evinces the conduct of Mehar Singh by driving the company car in a
drunken condition from the evidence of all the three witnesses.
5. According to Shri R.Partha Sarthy on February 16, 1997 at around
11.00 AM he heard the noise of the car outside his house and when he came
out he saw that Mehar Singh had damaged the car in an accident. On
questioning Mehar Singh replied vaguely and incoherently. The car was
badly damaged in front, the bumper was broken, bonnet had come up,
headlights on one side had smashed, one-side bumper carved in touching the
tyre and radiator was profusely leaking. The radiator fluid had left a trail of
mark in the middle of road about 100 metres to the accident site. It was
found that Mehar Singh had damaged the vehicle of Smt. Swapan Manjari
Chetal who complained that Mehar Singh was drunk and was driving
dangerously. Though no medical examination of Mehar Singh was got
conducted and matter was not reported to the Police, however Partha Sarthy
mentioned that two bottles were found in the car which were smelling of
liquor.
6. Mrs. Swapan Manjari Chetal with whose car the accident took place
deposed that when she came out of the house after hearing the noise she
found that her car had been hit by a Maroon colour N.E. car and the car had
stopped 100 yards away at the residence of Shri Partha Sarthy. According to
her, Mehar Singh who was standing there appeared to be heavily drunk and
the radiator fluid had left the trail. Shri Ashok Singhal another resident of
the area was also examined who was taking tea in the courtyard of his house
when he heard a loud noise and came out to see that the radiator of the N.E.
car profusely leaking. On the assurance of Mr.Partha Sarthy, Mehar Singh
who was fully drunk was not handed over to the Police. All the three
witnesses unequivocally stated Mehar Singh to be under the influence of
liquor, not in his senses and vaguely replying and his pant was going down.
7. In defence Mehar Singh did not deny accident, however he stated that
Mrs.Swapan Manjari Chetal suddenly drove back due to which the front of
his car hit her car and he was neither drunk nor negligent in driving. To the
evidence of the witnesses that why his clothes were not proper he stated that
since he was working for 24 hours his clothes were not in proper place.
8. The reliance of the appellant on the decision in Munna Lal (supra) is
misconceived. Since the accident was not reported to the Police, there being
no casuality or injury to a human being, no MLC was prepared, however the
evidence of the three witnesses who saw him intoxicated, not in proper
senses, answering vaguely with his pants down and two bottles smelling of
liquor being found in the car, cannot be brushed aside. The present is not a
case of no evidence and sufficiency of evidence cannot be gone into by this
Court.
9. The second contention of learned counsel for the appellant that
insurance claim would not have been given if Mehar Singh was drunk would
not be sufficient to grant him the benefit of doubt for the reason in the claim
form the management left the column "whether the driver was under the
influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs" was left blank. The site plan
placed on record corroborates the version of the three witnesses which is
further fortified by the fact that the impact of the damage was such that the
entire front portion of the N.E. car was damaged and it stopped after moving
for a further 100 yards leaving a trail of the fluid leaking from the radiator.
10. We find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015
'ga'
