Ashok Kumar Sharma vs M/S Leela Sons Breavaries
2024 Latest Caselaw 14243 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ashok Kumar Sharma vs M/S Leela Sons Breavaries on 15 May, 2024

Author: Maninder S. Bhatti

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

                                                                       1
                             IN        THE         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                        AT JABALPUR
                                                          BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                                          ON THE 15 th OF MAY, 2024
                                                     WRIT PETITION No. 6772 of 2017

                           BETWEEN:-
                           ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI SHYAMLAL
                           SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, C/O LEELASONS
                           STOP COMMERCIAL AREA, GOVINDPURA BHOPAL
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI MOHAN LAL SHARMA - ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           1.     M/S LEELA SONS BREAVARIES THR. FACTORY
                                  DIRECTOR SHRI ARUN KUMAR LEELA E-4/132
                                  ARERA COLONY BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.     JOINT REGISTRAR INDUSTRIAL COURT BENCH
                                  AT BHOPAL BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS )

                                  This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the

                           following:
                                                                        ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner while praying for following reliefs:-

(i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 20.04.2017 vide Annexure P/1, in the interest of justice.

(ii) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits with interest thereby affirming the order dated 16.12.2014 vide Annexure P/2, in the interest of justice.

(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. The facts as detailed in the petition reveal that the present petitioner was working with the respondent against the post of Boiler Attendant Class-I in the year 1998. Pertaining to an incident, a complaint was made on 16.10.1997 against the present petitioner. The department also conducted an inquiry and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, the termination order of the petitioner was passed on 19.02.1998. The order of termination was challenged by the present petitioner by raising a dispute in terms of Section 61 read with Section 31 of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Act, 1960 (hereinafter

referred to as '"Act, 1960") before the Labour Court. The Labour Court decided the same vide order dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure P/2), by which, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated back in service with 75% back wages. The respondent No.1 then assailed the said order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Labour Court by filing an appeal before the Industrial Court, Bhopal. The Industrial Court, Bhopal vide impugned order dated 20.04.2017 (Annexure P/1) set-aside the order dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Labour Court. Assailing the order of Industrial Court, Bhopal dated 20.04.2017 (Annexure P/1), this petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case, the Labour Court upon sifting of evidence carefully came to a categorical conclusion that as per the allegations levelled, the present petitioner was being projected as a culprit who assaulted Mr. Kamal Singh and as a result of which, Mr. Kamal Singh sustained injuries and in support of the said allegations, medical certificate of Dr. R.B. Sahni was also brought on record. However, Dr. R.B. Sahni entered in witness box and did not support the allegations levelled

against the present petitioner and thus, the Labour Court while dealing with the testimony of Dr. R.B. Sahni in paragraph 13 of the order, rightly came to a conclusion that the allegations against the present petitioner were unsustainable and it was not proved that on 12.10.1997, the present petitioner had manhandled Mr. Kamal Singh. Thus, the Labour Court had passed the order of reinstatement of the petitioner along with 75% back wages. It is contended by the counsel that the well reasoned findings so arrived in paragraphs 12 to 17 of the judgment of the Labour Court, could not have been reversed by the Industrial Court in a purely mechanical manner. It is further contended by the counsel that even other witnesses did not support the incident and in order to substantiate, the counsel has taken this Court to the statement of Mr. Govardhan who according to counsel, did not support the allegations as he was far from the place of incident. It is also contended by the counsel that the testimony of Mr. Kamal Singh and Mr. Fransis were to be examined while keeping the same in juxta position with the testimony of Dr. R.B. Sahni and in view of the testimony of Dr. R.B. Sahni, the entire version so set forth by the Management witnesses Mr. Fransis and Mr. Kamal Singh (injured) became untrustworthy and unreliable. Thus, counsel submits that as the Industrial Court while ignoring these important aspect of the matter, in a purely mechanical manner had passed the impugned order dated 20.04.2017 (Annexure P/1), the

impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

4. No one appeared for respondents.

5. No other point is argued or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner.

6. Heard the rival submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record.

7. A perusal of the record it reflects that in connection with an incident dated 12.10.1997, against the present petitioner, disciplinary action was taken and he was terminated. Later on, the petitioner approached the Labour Court by way of an application filed under Section 31 of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. The Labour Court allowed the said application and issued direction for reinstatement of the petitioner. A perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure P/2) reflects that the Labour Court while dealing with the testimony of Dr. R.B. Sahni came to a conclusion that Dr. R.B. Sahni had not supported his own certificate which was Exhibited as P/18 and Labour Court concluded that in order to implicate the present petitioner, a false medical certificate was prepared as Exhibit P/18 which was not supported by its so called Author ie. Dr. R.b. Sahni.

8. Labour Court accordingly proceeded to pass the order dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure P/2) for reinstatement of the petitioner with 75% back wages. The said order dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure P/2) of Labour Court has been set aside by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court while setting aside the order of Labour Court dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure P/2) observed that apart from the testimony of Dr. R.B. Sahni, there was testimony of other witnesses which could not have been ignored by the Labour Court. The Industrial Court further considered the aspect of indisciplin by an employee where he takes recourse to abuses as well as physical assault and ultimately Industrial Court concluded that the Labour Court committed an error while passing the order dated 16.12.2014 (Annexure P/2).

9. A perusal of the record it reflects that in support of the allegations, the Management examined Mr. Govardhan, Mr. Fransis and Mr. Kamal Singh

(injured). Mr. Govardhan and Mr. Fransis in their examination-in-chief

supported the incident dated 12.10.1997. Mr. Kamal Singh also specifically expressed the entire factum of incident dated 12.10.1997. The dispute is as regards the medical certificate which was issued to injured Mr. Kamal Singh. According to testimony of theses witnesses, Mr. Kamal Singh was taken at the clinic of Dr. R.B. Sahni where he was examined by a compounder. The testimony of all these witnesses namely, Mr. Govardhan, Mr. Fransis and Mr. Kamal Singh (injured) remained unrebutted as there was failure on the part of the present petitioner to rebut the allegations in the cross-examination of these witnesses. The present petitioner failed to rebut the allegations levelled against him which is evident from perusal of cross-examination of aforesaid all three witnesses. The testimony of all three witnesses, could not have been ignored by the Labour Court while passing the impugned order. The Industrial Court rightly appreciated that there were allegations of manhandling by the present petitioner and the said allegations were corroborated by the testimony of aforesaid three witnesses, namely, Mr. Govardhan, Mr. Fransis and Mr. Kamal Singh (injured).

10. Thus, in view of the well reasoned findings so arrived at by the Industrial Court's order dated 20.04.2017 (Annexure P/1) and in view of the various law laid down as discussed in the impugned order by the various Court including the Apex Court where the practice by an employee of manhandling and abuse to other colleague as well as his superior officers, was deprecated, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.04.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by Industrial Court.

11. Resultantly, the present petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE sp