Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
NAWAL KISHORE MEHTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.C. Bhasin, Advocate
Through: Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Advocate
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner in the present writ petition is assailing the Awards dated 30.01.2010 and 25.03.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-VII (East District), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (“impugned Awards”). Vide the impugned Award dated 30.01.2010 the learned Labour Court was pleased to uphold the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent/Management. Vide the impugned Award dated 25.03.2010, the learned Labour Court was pleased to confirm the punishment of „Compulsory Retirement‟ imposed on the Petitioner/workman by the Respondent/Management.
FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESENT
WRIT PETITION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk with the National Bureau of Soil Survey of Land Use and Planning (NBSSLUP) on 10.01.1977. Later in the month of January 1979, he was transferred to National Bureau of Plants Genetics Resources (NBPGR), Pusa Campus, Pusa, New Delhi. Later he was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 09.06.1993.
3. A Charge sheet dated 02.09.1996, was served upon the petitioner with the following charges: “On 30th June 95, Shri Naval Kishore, Senior Clerk manhandled Dr. P. N. Gupta, Principal Scientist & Head, Division of Germplasm Evaluation and Acting Director of the Bureau on that day. While Gupta depositing the cash with the Cashier in the afternoon at about 2:45 P.M., Shri Naval Kishore, commented adversely and used unparliamentary/abusive language and not only this but also he physically assaulted/manhandled/intimidated Dr. P. N. Gupta, a Govt./ICAR Employee while on official duty working hours. He acted in a manner of deliberate insubordination, gross indiscipline, and gross moral misconduct during working hours with his superior authority of the level of Acting Director of the Bureau and thus disturbed peace and working condition of the office. By his above Act, Shri Naval Kishore has exhibited lack of discipline, maintenance of proper office decorum and decent standard of conduct during office working hours and acted in a manner unbecoming of council‟s employee, and thereby contravened Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. ”
4. Petitioner vide its reply dated 07.10.1996 denied the allegation levelled against him in the charge-sheet and claimed innocence. Hence the Respondent Management conducted an enquiry in accordance with Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
5. After conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary Authority holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner stands proved. Based on the said enquiry report, the disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 03.04.1998 inflicted a penalty of „Compulsory Retirement‟ on the petitioner. The petitioner preferred a statutory Appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was rejected.
6. Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority and Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed Statement of Claim before the learned Labour Court alleging that the Respondent/Management conducted the enquiry in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Respondent/Management filed written statement contending that the domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with law.
7. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Labour Court framed the following issues: (i) “Whether a fair and proper enquiry was not conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice?
(ii) Whether the services of the workman have been terminated illegally/unjustifiably by the Management?
(iii) Relief?”
8. Issue No.1 was taken as the preliminary issue and parties were directed to lead evidence to substantiate their claim. Petitioner examined himself as WW-1 and exhibited documents WW-1 to WW-11. Respondent/Management examined Mr. S.K Sharma, Director as MW-1 and exhibited the notice dated 06.02.2004 as MW1/1.
9. The learned Labour Court examined the matter based on the evidence adduced before it. Vide the impugned Award dated 30.01.2010, the learned Labour Court was pleased to uphold the enquiry conducted by the Respondent/Management observing that „the enquiry does not suffer from any procedural or substantive aspect which amount to denial of natural justice‟. Subsequently, vide the impugned Award dated 25.03.2010, the learned Labour Court was pleased to hold that „the punishment imposed on the workman of "Compulsory retirement" is not disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the workman. The punishment imposed is not shocking to the conscious of the court, but it is the misconduct which is a shocking one. Therefore, the punishment of "Compulsory retirement" does not call for any interference and the same is upheld.‟
10. Being aggrieved by the impugned Awards dated 30.01.2010 and 25.03.2010, the petitioner preferred the present Writ Petition.
11. During the pendency of the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner expired and his legal heirs were impleaded as parties to the present proceedings.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
12. Mr. A.C. Bhasin, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned Awards dated 30.01.2010 and 25.03.2010 passed by the learned Labour Court is perverse and illegal and has been passed without appreciating the evidence produced on record.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the learned Labour Court has erred in relying on the testimony of Dr. S.K. Mittal, Dr. Shamsher Singh and Dr. P.N. Gupta, the victim. He further contended that the Respondent/Management has miserably failed to prove that Dr. P. N. Gupta was manhandled/assaulted by the petitioner herein.
14. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Labour Court erred in ignoring the fact that neither Dr. P. N. Gupta lodged any formal complaint before the police authorities nor got himself medically examined to prove the charges of manhandling and assault.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the testimonies of Mr. Rajbir, Mr. Babu Ram, Mr. Kulwant Singh, Ms. Vijayalaxmi and Dr. S.K. Mittal (all employees of the Respondent/Management) recorded during the enquiry proceedings to contend that the testimonies of all these witnesses clearly depicts that no such incident of manhandling or assault of Dr. P. N. Gupta has ever taken place as alleged in the charge-sheet and statement of articles of charges. Learned counsel further contended that the order of „Compulsory Retirement‟ had been passed mechanically without the charges of manhandling or assault on Dr. P. N. Gupta being proved.
16. Learned counsel further contended that even assuming that hot discussion or heated exchange of words have taken place between the petitioner and Dr. P. N. Gupta, it does not tantamount that the allegations as levelled in the articles of charges i.e. of manhandling and assault have been proved and as such the order passed by the disciplinary Authority of compulsorily retiring the petitioner holds no ground.
17. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside of the impugned Awards.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
18. Per contra, Mr. S. S. Lingwal, learned counsel for the Respondents contended that the impugned Awards have been passed correctly after appreciating the evidence on record and hence no interference by this Court is called for.
19. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is bound by the service conditions as applicable to all the employees of the Government institution. Learned counsel while placing reliance on the testimonies of Dr. S.K. Mithal, Dr. Shamsher Singh and Dr. P.N. Gupta contended that the statements of all these witnesses are corroborative in nature which points out towards the guilt of the petitioner.
20. Learned counsel further contended that the act of the petitioner was an act of deliberate insubordination, gross indiscipline, and gross moral misconduct during working hours with his superior authority of the level of Acting Director which is unbecoming of an employee of the council and deserves to be terminated from the office.
21. With these submissions, learned counsel for Respondents prays for the dismissal of the present Writ Petition.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
22. This Court had heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the documents on record and Judgments relied upon by the parties.
23. Before examining the facts of the present case, it is important to examine the power of the Labour Court and High Court in the matters of domestic enquiries.
24. It is a well settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of Certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction. Hence while exercising such supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court is not acting as an Appellate Court. The High Court, in the exercise of its powers of judicial review, is mainly concerned with the decision-making process and not the decision itself. Judicial review essentially deals with the manner in which the decision is made and not review of the decision on merits as a court of appeal.
25. However, the power conferred on Industrial Tribunals/ Labour Courts, under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “I.D. Act”) is far wider than the power exercised by the High Court in its Certiorari jurisdiction, more so, after introduction of Section 11-A of the I.D. Act. Pursuant to the amendment made to the I.D. Act, by incorporation of Section 11-A, Labour Courts/Tribunals are now clothed with the power and jurisdiction to re-appreciate the material available on record and substitute its own findings for that of the disciplinary authority. The power exercised by the Labour Court is akin to that of an appellate authority and even in cases where the domestic enquiry is held in accordance with principles of natural justice, Labour Courts /Tribunals are now entitled to interfere with the findings arrived in the domestic enquiry, substitute its own findings on the very same evidence, reach conclusions different from that of the Disciplinary Authority and even hold that the charge of misconduct is not established. Even in cases where Labour Courts/Tribunals find that the evidence and material available on record justifies the finding of misconduct arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority, it is still entitled to hold that the order of punishment imposed is not justified under the circumstances and impose a lesser punishment
26. It is no more res integra that the finding of fact recorded by the Industrial adjudicator, as a result of appreciation of evidence, cannot be reopened or challenged on the ground of insufficiency or inadequacy of evidence. The adequacy or insufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn therefrom is within the exclusive jurisdiction of industrial adjudicator. Finding of fact, recorded by a Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, can only be interfered with, if it is shown that, the said finding of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is patently illegal.
27. Based on the above stated legal principle, this Court proceeds to examine the facts of the present case. From the perusal of the impugned Awards dated 30.01.2010 & 25.03.2010, it is evident that the learned Labour Court examined the enquiry proceedings with minute details and arrived at the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the Respondent/Management is in accordance with law. Learned Labour Court vide the impugned Award dated 25.03.2010 also examined the aspect of „Quantum of punishment‟ and held that „the punishment imposed on the workman of "Compulsory retirement" is not disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the workman. The punishment imposed is not shocking to the conscious of the court, but it is the misconduct which is a shocking one‟.
28. Learned Labour Court exercised the jurisdiction vested in it by virtue of Section 11 A of the I.D. Act and this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not acting as an Appellate Authority to re-appreciate the evidence. Only in very exceptional cases, to meet the ends of justice this Court can substitute its own decision on merits for that of the authority concerned or the Tribunal.
29. On perusal of the records it shows that the petitioner commented adversely and used abusive language and even physically assaulted the acting Director of the Respondent/Management. Learned Labour Court recorded that the misconduct of the petitioner is shocking. The employees need to maintain strict discipline for the smooth functioning of an organization. The Respondent/Management conducted the enquiry in accordance with Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. It is not the case of the petitioner that the domestic enquiry was conducted in violation of the statutory provision. Hence this Court finds no such exceptional circumstances which necessitate interference. Learned Labour Court exercised the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 11 A of the I.D. Act and examined the evidence with minute precision. There is no perversity or infirmity in the decision of the learned Labour Court. Hence this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned awards while exercising the jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
30. The present Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
GAURANG KANTH, J. DECEMBER 06, 2022 n