Back
2008(2) Supreme 355
Supreme Court of india
C.K. Thakker & D. K. Jain, JJ.
Pepsu Road Transport Corp. — Petitioner
versus
Rawel Singh — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 1664 of 2008
Decided on : 29-02-2008
Facts of the Case-
1.Services of workman a driver with Pepsi road transport corporation was terminated herein in the instant case. A suit was filed there against on plea that order of termination was illegal corruptive; unfair and contrary to principles of natural justice and fair play. Said suit was decreed by Trial Court directing reinstatement . Appeal there against was dismissed. On fresh enquiry, Respondent not joined proceedings and was dismissed from service. On Industrial dispute, Labour Court passed an award in favour of workman which was confirmed by High Court .
2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of Labour Court and High Court.
Findings of the Court –
The Court held that even at an earlier occasion, when allegations were levelled against respondent-workman, notice was issued and enquiry was instituted, he did not make himself available and the Enquiry Officer was constrained to proceed with enquiry ex parte and an order of termination of services was passed. True it is that respondent-workman approached Civil Court and suit filed by him came to be allowed and decree was confirmed in appeal. But it was equally true that liberty was granted to Corporation to initiate proceedings afresh on same charges and hence initiation of proceedings could not be said to be illegal or contrary to law. Evidence on record that notice was issued to respondent and it was received by him, he filed his reply, he also appeared before Enquiry Officer but subsequently he did not remain present and absented himself. If, in light of said facts, Enquiry Officer was obliged to proceed with enquiry ex parte, it could not be said that by doing so, Enquiry Officer had committed an error either of fact or of law and enquiry proceedings were liable to be quashed. Inspite of service of show cause notice, respondent failed to appear at enquiry and Enquiry Officer had to proceed with enquiry in absence of Respondent . So far as charge as to unauthorized absence of the Respondent was concerned, same was established from record. Enquiry Officer, rightly observed that all charges could be said to have been proved against Respondent. Labour Court was wholly wrong in holding that enquiry was not fair. Finding recorded by Labour Court that enquiry was vitiated being violative of natural justice and fair play based on ‘no evidence’ was set aside . Labour Court was held not right in awarding back wages with interest thereon.To that extent, therefore, order could not be said to be in consonance with law. High Court, in upholding the said award and confirming direction, committed the same error.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
judgment
C.K. Thakker, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.This appeal is filed against an award passed by the Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Jallandhur on January 31, 2006 in Reference No. 608 of 2000 and confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on November 10, 2006 in Civil Writ Petition No.11570 of 2006.
3.Shortly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent-workman was serving as a Driver with the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (‘the Corporation’ for short). On September 8, 1988, the respondent sent a leave application from his home-town seeking leave upto September 30, 1988 on medical ground. On expiry of the leave period, however, he did not join duties. A report was submitted by the Depot Manager to the Corporation and a notice was issued to the workman on December 5, 1988 seeking his explanation as to absence from duty. He was also asked to report within ten days. Though the said notice was duly served, the respondent failed to join duty. A charge sheet was, therefore, issued against the respondent wherein three allegations were levelled against him (i) knowingly and intentionally remaining absent without sanction of leave and without sending leave application, (ii) failure to take interest in work and (iii) disobedience of Rules of Corporation.
4.A reply was filed by the respondent denying allegations levelled against him and praying for withdrawal of notice. The Corporation was not satisfied with the explanation. An enquiry was instituted against the workman. Though the respondent was fully aware and had knowledge of date of hearing, he failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry was held ex parte. On the basis of evidence led by management, a finding was recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the charges levelled against the respondent-workman were proved. After the receipt of Enquiry Officer’s report again show cause notice was issued to the respondent on June 20, 1989 and he was asked to submit his representation within fifteen days. He was also asked to remain present, if he wanted personal hearing, but the respondent failed to remain present.
5.Considering the reply submitted by the respondent, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of termination of services of the workman on July 13, 1989.
6.Being aggrieved by the order of termination, the respondent instituted a suit in the Court of Sub-Judge Kapurthala. It was contended by him that the order of termination was illegal, cryptic, unfair and contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair play. Though the Corporation filed written statement, contested the matter and denied all the averments made and allegations levelled against the Corporation, the trial court, on June 3, 1993 decreed the suit holding that the order was not sustainable as it was violative of principles of natural justice as also inconsistent with the provisions of Service Rules of the Corporation. The Court, therefore, granted reinstatement of the plaintiff-employee granting liberty to the Corporation to hold fresh enquiry on the same charges. The Corporation preferred an appeal against the decree passed by the trial court but the appellate court confirmed the decree. The matter came to an end there; the workman was reinstated in service and granted all the benefits to which he was held entitled under the decree.
7.In the light of the observations made and liberty granted by the Court, fresh enquiry was instituted against the respondent. A show cause notice was issued which was duly received by the respondent but he did not participate in the enquiry. Enquiry was, therefore, proceeded ex parte. According to the Corporation, it was the modus operandi of the workman not to remain present at the enquiry as he was working with private bus operators and thereafter to challenge ex parte orders. In the second enquiry also, he did not cooperate. He contended that he had not received necessary documents. He did not join the proceedings, remained absent and allowed the enquir
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
