Back
2001 Supreme(Guj) 738
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :P.B.MAJMUDAR
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION - Appellant
Versus
HASHMUKH PANNALAL MAJMUDAR - Respondent
S.C.A. 12107 of 2000
Decided On : 10/23/2001
Headnote:(a) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (Central Act 14 of 1947) — Sec. 11-A — Quantum of punishment — Disciplinary authority passing dismissal order against workman looking to gravity of charges — Industrial Tribunal awarded reinstatement with 25% back wages — Challenged by employer — Workman admitting his guilt without force, coercion, threat or intimidation — Neither violation of principles of natural justice nor of any Clause of Order 23 of Certified Standing Orders — Held, Tribunal factually committed mistake to give finding that charge sheet was given late after three years — Tribunal committed error of law and fact — Not a fit case to exercise powers under Sec. 11-A — Hence, impugned order of Tribunal quashed and set aside.
It is not a case in which powers under Sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act would have been exercised at all. In view of what is stated above, in Court view, the Tribunal has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in coming to the conclusion that the charge-sheet is required to be quashed as it is served after a period of three years. The Tribunal has also clearly erred in coming to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer was required to give finding against each of the charges. As stated above, the charge-sheet was issued with in a period of three years from the date of the alleged incident and after the charges were framed, the delinquent officer pleaded guilty on his own violation and without there being any threat, coercion or force and, therefore, when there is a voluntary admission on the part of the delinquent accepting the charges, it was not necessary for the Enquiry Officer still to proceed, in detail, with the enquiry proceedings or to give finding against each of the charges separately, especially when the employee has pleaded guilty regarding all the charges. Both the aforesaid grounds on which the Tribunal has allowed the Reference cannot be sustained and the order of the Tribunal is required to be set aside as the Tribunal has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case in its proper perspective and has committed an error of law in reaching the conclusion that the departmental enquiry is vitiated or that the charge-sheet is required to be quashed on the ground of delay, and coupled with the said facts, the fact that the concerned employee has also given Pursis at Exhibit 53, stating that he is not challenging the legality and validly of the Enquiry Officers report, is also required to be taken into consideration and the disciplinary authority has considered the question of penalty and has applied his mind while coming to the conclusion that looking to the charges, it is a fit case in which only dismissal order is required to be passed. This is also not a case in which powers under Sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act could have been exercised in favour of the employee and looking to the seriousness of the charges, which are ultimately proved on the basis of his own admission, no other penalty except removal can be inflicted on the concerned workman.
So far as the questions of giving of Enquiry Officers Report or giving an opportunity of hearing before imposing penalty are concerned, since there was no such provision in the Certified Standing Orders at the relevant time, it was not incumbent upon the petitioner-Management to give any hearing or to submit Enquiry Officers report.
[Para 23]
(b) Service and Employment — Quantum of punishment — Disciplinary authority passing dismissal order against workman looking to gravity of charges — Industrial Tribunal awarded reinstatement with 25% back wages — Challenged by employer — Workman admitting his guilt without force, coercion, threat or intimidation — Neither violation of principles of natural justice nor of any Clause of Order 23 of Certified Standing Orders — Held, Tribunal factually committed mistake to give finding that charge sheet was given late after three years — Tribunal Committed error of law and fact — Not a fit case to exercise powers under Sec. 11-A — Hence, impugned order of Tribunal quashed and set aside — Sec. 11-A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
( 1 ) ). THIS petition is directed against the Award dated 15. 4. 2000, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, in Reference (ITC) No. 1 of 1992. By the impugned Award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the Reference and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent-workman on his original post, with 25% back wages.
( 2 ) THE respondent workman was, initially, appointed as a Clerk-cum-Typist in the year 1974 and he was, subsequently, promoted as Senior Clerk in 1978 and in 1983, he was promoted as Office Assistant. As Office Assistant, he was in charge of processing leave applications, leave encashment, L. T. C. applications of the employees, etc. The respondent was subjected to charge-sheet on 13. 8. 1987 as regards various misconducts committed by him during the period between 1984 and May, 1986. Copy of the charge-sheet is produced at Annexure `1. As per the said charge-sheet, dated 13th August, 1987, the respondent was subjected to following acts of misconduct :-". . . . . . . . . 1. You have falsified the leave entries either by erasing and / or overwriting in the service book/leave encashment applications. 2. You have omitted to make necessary entries in the service books of the employees. 3. You have fraudulently misappropriated the monies of the Corporation and / or aided the other employees to misappropriate the monies of the Corporation. 4. You have forged the signature of the officer on the leave encashment application to get the benefit. 5. In two cases encashment was allowed even before the leave became actually due. 6. Either yourself or in connivance and or collusion with the concerned employee, you have acted against the interest of the Corporation. 7. You have gained illegal benefit thus by encashing leave not due to you and accepted illegal gratification for obliging other employees. The facts leading to the aforesaid acts are : (A) Your own service book and leave encashment application. (I) In leave encashment application dated 8. 1. 1985, the entry in the service book shows 5 days where as you have actually availed encashment of 25 days. You have converted the 5 days on application to 25 resulting in excess encashment of 20 days. (II) In leave Encashment application dated 11. 2. 1985 there is encashment of 10 days leave while there is absolutely no entry in the service book. Also it appears that you have forged the signature of officer Shri B. Arunkumar. This reveals that you have drawn encashment for 10 days by forging the signature of the officer. (III) In leave encashment application dated 10. 9. 1985 there is encashment of 30 days leave, while there is no entry in the service book. The Officer Shri B. Arunkumars signature appears to have been forged resulting in the benefit of 30 days encashment. . . . . . . . . . . "
( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, Enquiry Officer was also appointed for the purpose of conducting departmental enquiry against the respondent-workman. Therafter, by letter dated 16th May, 1988, which is at page 28 in the compilation, the respondent-workman made a voluntary statement, on his own free will, before the Enquiry Officer. In the aforesaid statement, he has admitted the charges levelled against him. He tendered unconditional apology for the acts of misconduct. In his letter, he prayed that a compassionate view may be taken in his case. The relevant part of the aforesaid letter tendered by him to the Enquiry Officer dated 16th May, 1988 is reproduced as under :-". . . . . . . . . I admit the charges levelled against me vide charge-sheet No. P/i/56451 dated 13. 8. 87. I, therefore, submit an unconditional apology for the acts of misconduct as detailed in the charge-sheet referred to above. I request to the Enquiry Officer that keeping in view my age, the family circumstances and fact that I have voluntarily admitted my guilt recommended to the disciplinary authority that compassionate view may be taken in my case. For this act of kindness I shall ever remain gratef
