Employees In Relation To Their Workman vs M/S. Tata Motors Limited (Formerly ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 10292 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Employees In Relation To Their Workman vs M/S. Tata Motors Limited (Formerly ... on 11 November, 2024

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                W.P.(L) No. 2738 of 2018

               Employees in relation to their workman, namely, Dilip Nandi, son of
               Sri J.C. Nandi, age 52 years, resident of Qr. No.K-2/1, Road No.8,
               Telco Colony, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Telco, Town Jamshedpur,
               District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)           ...    ...   Petitioner
                                         Versus
               M/s. Tata Motors Limited (formerly known as Telco Limited),
               through its General Manager (Matls, ADD & SQIG), having office at
               Telco Colony, P.O. & P.S. Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum,
               Jamshedpur
                                                      ...         ...   Respondent
                                         ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

               For the Petitioner        : Mr. Anupam Shandilya, Advocate
               For the Respondent        : Ms. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
                                         ---
10/11.11.2024         Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 18.12.2017 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No.3 of 2011 whereby the reference has been decided against the workman.

Arguments of the Petitioner

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that arising out of the same occurrence, a criminal case was also instituted and the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case on 19.04.2018 whereas the impugned order was passed by the learned labour court on 18.12.2017. He submits that acquittal of the petitioner has a bearing in the present case.

4. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner was not solely responsible for the challan and the petitioner had acted under the instructions of the supervisor. He has submitted that considering the nature of allegation, the punishment was disproportionate to the charges proved. The learned counsel has submitted that the charge was primarily in connection with negligence in duty. He has also submitted that a petition was filed seeking amendment in the written statement raising the plea of victimization and unfair labour practice but such amendment was declined by the

learned labour court but the present case is a case of victimization and unfair labour practice.

Arguments of the Respondent

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that the petitioner was charged for "habitual negligence or neglect of duty or work and deceptive or corrupt practices". It was alleged that the petitioner had acknowledged the receipt of consignment of tyres on challan but the same was never reported to have been unloaded at the area where it was sent. The details of the challan number have also been mentioned in the charge sheet.

6. The learned counsel submits that by a specific order, the preliminary issue regarding fairness of domestic enquiry was decided and it was held to be fair and proper. It was only after such decision, the petitioner sought to amend the written statement by making allegation of victimization and unfair labour practice. She has submitted that the learned labour court has rejected the amendment which was an afterthought and further the impugned order has been decided within the contours of Section 11A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. She has also submitted that the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, though after the passing of the impugned award, has no bearing in the matter. She has also submitted that the nature of allegation and the evidences adduced in the criminal case and the domestic enquiry are different though they arise out of the same incident.

7. She has also relied upon the following judgments on the scope of enquiry before the learned labour court once the domestic enquiry is held to be fair and proper:-

(i) (1974) 3 SCC 712 (The East India Hotels Vs. Their Workmen and others) paragraph 5

(ii) 2018 (1) JCR 159 (Jhr) The management of Telco Vs. K.C. Bandyopadhyaya) paragraph 6

8. On the point of quantum of punishment, the learned counsel has submitted that there was complete loss of confidence by the management which has been taken note of by the impugned award. She has relied upon the following judgements:-

(iii) (2018) 1 SCC 285 (Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. M. Mani) paragraph 30 This judgment has been referred to submit that once the confidence is lost, the order of dismissal is justified. On the same line, she has also referred to the judgment reported in 2009 SCC Online Jhar 660 (M.Y. Khan Vs. M/s Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd.) paragraph 5 (vii)

(iv) 2014 SCC Online Jhar 2689 (Raghaw Prasad Shahi Vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.) paragraph 7

9. The learned counsel has submitted that there is no perversity in the impugned award, and accordingly, the same does not call for any interference under writ jurisdiction.

Findings of this Court

10. The following charges were levelled against the workman:

"Charges You are hereby charged with having committed the acts of misconducts as described hereinafter under Works Standing Order No.24 and more particularly under sub-clause of the said Standing Order On the (date and time of incident) when you were on duty/not on duty you are alleged to have committed the following acts of misconducts:

Sub-clause

(iv) "Habitual negligence or neglect of duty or work."

(xv) "Decepting or corrupt practices"

Brief description of the incident corresponding to the acts of misconducts as stated above It is alleged that you have acknowledged the receipt of the consignment of tyres on Challan but the same have not been physically reported at tyre unloading area The details mentioned below

Challan No. Challan date Challan No. Challan date NSK 13776 26.11.2006 NSK 15507 28.12.2006 NSK 13779 26.11.2006 NSK 15510 28.12.2006

NSK 14569 09.12.2006 NSK 15435 27.12.2006 NSK 14572 09.12.2006 NSK 15438 27.12.2006

It is further alleged that you have repeatedly neglected your duty and indulged in deceptive practices, hence rendered yourself liable for disciplinary action.

You are called upon to submit your explanation in writing to the chargesheet on or before the 28.05.2007 showing cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against you under the Works Standing Orders. Please note that you are suspended from duty with immediate effect pending further proceedings, if no explanation is received within the time stipulated, further action as may be appropriate would be taken in the matter."

11. The enquiry report has been placed on record. From perusal of the enquiry report, it appears that as many as three management witnesses were examined but the workman in spite of given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses did not choose to cross- examine.

12. The workman, however, gave his statement and stated that he was an E-4 grade employee working in Material Division initially for about 12 years; his main job was only feeding the production department with tyres and wheel rims; on being promoted to E-4, he also started doing the job of receiving tyres and wheel rims since last one and a half years. After explaining his job of receiver, he further stated that on some occasion, tyres had been unloaded in other areas such as FDY, CTR and CMS and in these cases, on the verbal assurance of Mr. Pati, his supervisor, he had confirmed the vehicles had been unloaded, signed the challan and released the vehicles. He further stated in his statement that with respect of receipt of challan mentioned in the charge sheet, he had merely signed on the challan as "OK" based on the "OK remark" written by the supervisor Mr. Pati.

13. During the enquiry, ultimately, he was found guilty of the charges of negligence of duty as well as deceptive or corrupt practice. The learned labour court decided the validity of the domestic enquiry by a separate order dated 29.06.2013 and it was held that the enquiry held was fair and proper. This Court has gone through the order dated 29.06.2013 and finds that the same is well reasoned order. No

illegality as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments so far as the fairness of domestic enquiry is concerned. The perusal of the domestic enquiry report reveals that on the basis of the reply filed by the petitioner in the domestic inquiry, it was recorded that the petitioner did not deny his signatures on the challans and he had admitted that he had merely acknowledged the challans without doing the preliminary checks i.e physically ensuring the unloading of vehicles, thereby neglecting his duty. Further, the natural justice was duly followed while conducting the domestic enquiry. The findings of the learned labour court dated 29.06.2013 in connection with validity of domestic enquiry is, interalia, quoted as under:

"Undoubtedly, acknowledging the challans merely on the verbal assurance of any superior continuously is conclusive evidence to infer that the workman had a planned intention & motive to mislead his superior-officers for personal gain.

7. After a careful consideration of the entire pleadings, and evidences available on record, this court is satisfied to hold that (1) the charges against the workman was fully explained by the enquiry officers to which the workman fully understood. The workman participates in the domestic enquiry in cordial atmosphere and on each sheet of enquiry proceedings endorsed his signatures. Entire deliberation in the domestic enquiry took-place in hindi to avoid any prejudice to the workman. The workman on the question expressed no objection against the enquiry officers. The workman was allowed liberty to take help from any fellow-workman in producing his defence. Required adjournment was also granted to the workman. He was also allowed opportunity to cross-examine management witnesses & to adduce his own evidence by examining witnesses. The enquiry officers have properly appreciated the materials produced before them and they prepared their report (ext m/6) based on the evidence & materials before them.

8. On the basis of above discussions of the pleadings and evidences of the parties, this court finds and hold that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was "fair & proper"."

14. This Court also finds that after the enquiry was held to be valid, a petition for amendment was filed seeking to introduce further grounds to challenge the order of dismissal i.e. trying to make out a case of victimization. The prayer for amendment was also dismissed by a reasoned order dated 02.03.2017 by observing that the petitioner had nowhere mentioned the reasons for not mentioning the averments in the original written statement, and the parties by the time had already concluded their respective evidences and preliminary issue of

fairness of domestic enquiry was decided against the workman. The order refusing amendment has not been challenged and no illegality or perversity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the order refusing amendment to the written statement.

15. The learned court ultimately decided the case within the contours of Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act and held that the workman was a Material Associate Grade 1 and by virtue of the post was dealing with the materials of the department and was holding a post of trust and confidence. The learned labour court also recorded that the workman was holding a post of trust and confidence, and therefore, the management was justified in dismissing the workman on the basis of proved misconduct. The finding of the learned labour court in paragraph no.11 to 13 are as under:

"11. The workman was a material associate Grade 1 in the Deptt. Of O.P. and thus by virtue of post was dealing with the materials of the Deptt. and thus was holding a post of trust and confidence. The proved misconduct against the workman is that on different occasions he had acknowledged the receipt of consignment of tyres on the challan on behalf of the company did not physically report about the same at the tyre unloading area of the company and, therefore, was found guilty of misconduct of "Habitual negligence or neglect of duty or work and also of deceptive or corrupt practices."

12. Undoubtedly the workman was holding a post of total trust and confidence of the management as he was involved in the store materials dealing and has been found guilty of misconduct which is directly related to and eroding the trust and confidence of workman towards the management. The proved misconduct is one which is squarely within the four wall moral turpitude. In fact and as a result of proved misconduct, this workman has lost his credance, trust and confidence to the workman and consequently the management can not be expected off to be liberal in awarding the punishment. That being the fact situation, this court is the excessive power under section 11A of I/D Act does not require any interference of managerial action of punishment of dismissal as awarded.

13. If I take into consider the solicited situation specially the nature of misconduct and the punishment awarded to the workman who was having holding a post of trust and confidence, I am confident that managerial action of dismissal is just, fair and appropriate requiring no interference under section 11A of Industrial Dispute Act by this Court."

16. It is to be taken into consideration that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case by a subsequent judgment dated 19.04.2018. Upon perusal of the judgement of acquittal, this court

finds that the petitioner was charged for offence under Sections 406, 407, 408, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and two persons faced the trial. At the stage of trial of the criminal case, the set of witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution was totally different from the set of witnesses, which were produced in the domestic enquiry. The nature of allegation was also different inasmuch as the petitioner was, interalia, charged of negligence of duty in the domestic enquiry but the same was not subject matter of consideration in the criminal case.

17. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case vide judgment dated 19.04.2018 has no bearing in the present case. This is over and above the fact that the order for acquittal has been passed after the order passed by the learned labour court.

18. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned award passed by the learned labour court calling for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

19. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned labour court has passed a reasoned order and this Court finds no illegality or perversity with the reasons cited by the learned labour court refusing to interfere with the order of dismissal.

20. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

21. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/-