A.P.T. Pneumatics Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravi Vashishta

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? VEENA BIRBAL, J.

1. By way of this petition, petitioner/management has challenged the impugned award dated 01.07.2006 by which the Labour Court has awarded relief of reinstatement with 50% back wages along with continuity of service and other legal benefits to respondent.

2. As per the case of petitioner/management, respondent was working as a Marketing Engineer in the Delhi office of petitioner/management. It is alleged that during the course of employment, respondent committed certain acts of misconduct and therefore he was charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated 23.06.2000. An enquiry was conducted by the petitioner/management and thereafter the respondent was removed 2010:DHC:6290 respondent raised the industrial dispute. The Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi referred the same for adjudication to the Labour Court with the following terms of reference: “Whether the services of Shri Ravi Vashist have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

3. Pursuant thereto respondent filed a statement of claim before the Labour Court alleging therein that he had been working with the management from 01.07.1998 on the post of Marketing Engineer. Respondent along with other employees made a complaint to the petitioner/management against Shri Vivek Kamboj, Regional Manager. Thereafter, management turned hostile and vindictive and started harassing the petitioner and the said Vivek Kamboj also made a complaint against the petitioner and against one Guru Dutt and Ajay Prasad on 19.06.2000 and an FIR was registered against them. On 20.06.2000, the respondent as well as the aforesaid two workers were suspended and on 23.06.2000, a charge sheet was issued to him which was duly replied and thereafter Enquiry Officer was appointed. It is stated that no notice was given and ex parte enquiry was conducted and respondent was removed from service on 12.08.2000.

4. Petitioner/management filed a written statement before the Labour Court wherein the allegations made by the respondent was denied and it was categorically stated that in case of vitiation of management be given an opportunity to prove the alleged misconduct before it by leading evidence and that the respondent was a “Sales Engineer” and was not covered under the definition of workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. The issues were initially framed by the Labour Court on 5.12.2003. On 6.09.2005, issues were amended. In all the following issues were framed:-

5. As noted in the impugned award, issue no. 1 was treated as a preliminary issue. On 28.03.2006, the enquiry issue was decided against the petitioner/management and in favour of workman. The grievance of the petitioner/management is that after deciding the issue of enquiry against the petitioner, the Labour Court passed the impugned award dated 01.07.2006 by observing that the management has not taken any plea in the written statement seeking opportunity to lead evidence in the event of vitiation of enquiry and as such granted reinstatement to the respondent with 50% back wages.

6. Aggrieved with the same, the present writ petition is filed.

7. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the written been taken that fair opportunity has been given to the respondent to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer and if the court arrives at a finding that the enquiry was not fair, the management seeks liberty to prove the charges of misconduct before this court. It is contended that despite having taken a specific stand in the written statement/reply, the Labour Court has not given any opportunity to petitioner/management of leading evidence before it to prove the alleged charges of misconduct. It is contended that the Labour Court failed to read the written statement and after deciding the issue of enquiry against the petitioner/management passed the impugned award observing that the management has not taken plea in the written statement seeking opportunity to lead evidence before the Court in case enquiry is vitiated as such passed the award against the management. It is contended that failure on the part of the Labour Court to read the written statement filed by it and thereby depriving the petitioner/management of its valuable right to lead evidence to prove the alleged misconduct before Court is a non application of mind, as such the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, the stand of the respondent/workman is that after enquiry issue was decided on 28.03.2006, the management did not appear before the court nor appraised that such a stand as stated above, has been taken in the written statement and as such the impugned award is legal and valid in all respects and does not call for any interference.

10. I have considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.

11. Vide orders dated 28th March, 2006, the Labour Court has held that the management has failed to establish that enquiry conducted against the workman was fair and as such, decided the said issue in favour of workman. Thereafter, the Labour Court listed the matter for final arguments. The Labour Court also noted in the order dated 28th March, 2006 that the management has not taken any plea in the written statement to lead evidence before court in case enquiry is vitiated. I have perused the written statement on record. There is categorical stand in the written statement that if the court arrives at a finding that the inquiry was not fair, the management seeks liberty to prove the charges of misconduct before this court. The relevant portion of the written statement/reply is reproduced which is as under:- “xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The Management places reliance upon the record of the inquiry and shall prove the same. However if this court arrives at a finding that the inquiry was not fair the Management seeks liberty to prove the charges of misconduct before this court.” In view of the categorical averment in the written statement, the finding of the Labour Court in the impugned award that the management has not taken any plea in the written statement/reply seeking opportunity to lead evidence in the event of vitiation of enquiry, is an apparent error on record. In these circumstances, the by the management to prove alleged misconduct before the court as per the settled law. Reference in this regard is made to (i) The Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd Vs. The Management & others 1973 (1) LLJ 278; (ii) Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn Vs Lakshmidevamma AIR 2001 sc 2090; (iii) Amrit Vanaspati Co.Ltd Vs Khem Chand & Anr 2006 (6) SCC 325 &

(iv) Mukesh Tripathi Vs Senior Divisional Manager LIC & Ors 2004(8)