Labour Courts must refrain from re-evaluating evidence after confirming the fairness of a disciplinary inquiry; interference is only permissible when findings are perverse or lack evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SHAIL JAIN, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Management, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL), under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the Award dated 26.09.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Rajendra Place, New Delhi, in I.D. No. 56/1995, whereby the termination of the Respondent/workman was held to be illegal and unjustified, and the Petitioner was directed to reinstate the Respondent without back wages but with continuity of service.

Facts of the case:

2. Brief facts emerging from the records, which are necessary for the adjudication of the writ, are that the Respondent was engaged with the Petitioner/management as a driver (DRM) with effect from 28.09.1982 and was treated as a daily-rated/casual worker, being paid wages as fixed and revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

3. On 09.01.1988, the Respondent was assigned a Standard–20 vehicle bearing No. DEP-5070, which, according to the Management, was taken out of the premises of Kidwai Bhawan at about 15:30 hours and was not parked back on the same day. It was alleged that on 10.01.1988 at about 20:30 hours, the said vehicle was noticed by the Sh. A.K Trikha, DDG, Vigilance Department at Kosikalan on Delhi-Mathura Road. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 14.01.1988 was issued to the Respondent calling upon him to explain why the said lapse should not be treated as a serious misconduct warranting termination of service.

4. The Respondent/workmen submitted his written explanation dated 28.01.1988, stating that the vehicle was taken out under the oral directions of Sh. Hari Singh, Junior Telecom Officer for repairs, that the repairs were carried out, and that the vehicle was duly parked back at Kidwai Bhawan on the same day at about 18:30 hours. It was further stated that 10.01.1988 was his weekly off and he had no knowledge of the subsequent movement of the vehicle.

5. A domestic inquiry was initiated against the Respondent. An Inquiry Officer was appointed, and after completion of the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 30.06.1988 holding the charges against the Respondent to be proved. Based on the inquiry report, the services of the Respondent were terminated vide order dated 01.08.1988. The departmental appeal preferred by the Respondent was also dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by the termination, the Respondent raised an industrial dispute. The appropriate Government, by reference dated 05.05.1995, referred the following question for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II:

“Whether the action of the Management of MTNL, New Delhi, in terminating the services of Shri Ram Rattan is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”

7. Before the Labour Court, the Respondent/workman filed a statement of claim challenging the legality of the domestic inquiry and the order of termination. The Respondent alleged, inter alia, that the inquiry was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were based on conjectures and surmises, and that the punishment imposed was disproportionate.

8. The Management filed a written statement opposing the claim, contending that a fair and proper inquiry had been conducted, that the Respondent was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself, and that the mis