Back
2001 Supreme(Kar) 888
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
R. Gururajan, J.
M. Ravindran —Appellant
Vs.
The Management of Bharat Electronics Limited —Respondent
Writ Petition No. 17446 of 2000
Decided on : 09-11-2001
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. A.J. Srinivasan, for the Appellant
Mr. P.D. Vishwanath, AGH Associates, for the Respondent
An acquittal on the same set of facts comes to the aid of the workman in seeking reinstatement in an employment dispute.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Employment Dispute - Standing Orders 15(1)(c) - Section 381 Indian Penal Code - [Standing Orders 15(1)(c), Section 381 IPC] - The court considered the impact of an acquittal order on an employment dispute. It referenced various judgments, including a Bombay High Court case and a Supreme Court case, to establish that an acquittal on the same set of facts comes to the aid of the workman in seeking reinstatement. The court found that the Labour Court had committed a serious error in not ordering reinstatement after an order of acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The workman was dismissed by the management for alleged theft of company's property. Despite being acquitted in a criminal case, the Labour Court confirmed the dismissal. The workman sought reinstatement and backwages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Labour Court had erred in not ordering reinstatement after the acquittal. It held that the subsequent acquittal was fatal to the management's case and set aside the impugned award. The court directed the management to reinstate the workman and settle all his benefits within 2 months.
Issues: Effect of acquittal on employment dispute, fairness of the enquiry proceedings, entitlement to reinstatement and backwages.
Ratio Decidendi: An acquittal on the same set of facts comes to the aid of the workman in seeking reinstatement. The theory of guilt based on a confession statement alone is not acceptable. Subsequent acquittal is fatal to the management's case.
Final Decision: The impugned award was set aside, and the management was directed to reinstate the workman and settle all his benefits within 2 months.
R. Gururajan, J.—The Petitioner-workman is before this Court challenging the award at Annexure-A dated 23.10.1999 passed in reference No. 30 of 1990.
2. Petitioner joined the Respondent-Company in the year 1974. He was issued with a charge sheet dated 1.7.1987 alleging therein that the Petitioner at the instance of others abetted/committed theft of Belling Lee Plugs. The quantity according to charge sheet was approximately 200 Nos. A reply was sent by the Petitioner. The Respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings. Enquiry Officer submitted a report on guilt of charges. Management accepted the same. Thereafter an order of dismissal has been passed by the Management. Said dismissal was challenged in reference No. 30 of 1990 in terms of an order of reference made by the State Government by order dated 17.5.1990. Parties have filed their respective statements. Evidence was recorded. Labour Court passed an order holding the enquiry as fair and proper. The labour Court, on merits, ordered that the dismissal order passed by the Management is justified on the facts of the case.
3. This award is challenged in this petition.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
5. Sri A.J. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Labour Court is wrong in finding his client as guilty. He refers to evidence on record. He further contends that the workman was acquitted in CC No. 5866 of 1989 in terms of the order dated 13.11.1991. Despite the said order the labour Court has confirmed the order of dismissal. According to the Counsel this finding of the Labour Court requires my interference. Counsel for the Petitioner refers to various judgments in this regard.
6. Counsel for the management is heard. He says that the workman committed a serious act of misconduct of theft in the matter. He also states that the workman has admitted the charge and the acquittal does not help him in any manner.
7. After hearing both the parties I have perused the material placed before this Court.
8. The Company issued an articles of charges in terms of Annexure-B. It reads as under:
For reasons stated intra, Sri M. Ravindran, Staff No. 149776 is called upon to furnish his explanation within four days of receipt of this communication as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him:
REASONS:
He is in the service of the Company from 27.12.1974 and at present is working as helper in WG II. During the course of his employment, he at the instance of the Sri Amjadulla Khan, Staff No. 150866 and in collusion with S/s. M. Singaram, Staff No. 149506, H.K. Subbaiah, Staff No. 154668, Javare Gowda, Staff No. 104572, Devaraj, Staff No. 114292, Susainathan, Staff No. 025419 abetted/committed theft of Company's property viz. Belling Lee plugs 9200 Nos. (approximate) in order to make personal gain.
He has admitted abetting committing theft of company's property vide his signed statement dated 19.5.1987.
His act of abetting/committing theft of company's property as stated above constitutes misconduct under Standing Orders 15(1)(c) of the Company.
9. When the same was confronted to the workman, the workman has submitted his reply dated 6.7.1987. He has denied the charges. Thereafter, an enquiry has been held on several dates. Witnesses have been examined. Thereafter, the enquiry officer has submitted his findings holding the Petitioner guilty of charges in the report. The management accepted the same and passed an order on 9.3.1989. The labour Court after recording evidence has ruled that the enquiry is fair and proper. The labour Court notices the entire enquiry proceedings and thereafter it holds that the workman has been given sufficient opportunities in the enquiry. The labour Court notices that the enquiry was held in Kannada language and the Petitioner did have sufficient opportunities in the enquiry. The labour Court after considering the material facts have come to a conclusion that the enquiry is fair and proper. The said order in my view does no
