Back
2012 Supreme(Guj) 443
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.R. Brahmbhatt
Apollo Tyres Limited
Versus
Rakeshkumar Pal & Anr.
Special Civil Application No. 21519 of 2007—Decided on 17/09/2012
Appearance :
Mr. Varun K. Patel, for the Petitioner.
Mr. N.D. Songara, for the Respondent No. 1.
Mr. H.S.Mulia, for the Respondent No. 1.
Mr. B.K. Raj, for the Respondent No. 1.
Rule Served, for the Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Paritosh Calla, for the Respondent No. 2.
Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts of the case impugned order of Labour Court is not sustainable.
Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 226 and 227 — Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) — Section 11-A — Award by Labour Court — Order of reinstatement with 20% back wages, continuity of service and Rs. 1000 cost — Challenged as workman was involved in serious crime amounting to misconduct — Order of dismissal does not warrant interference — Finding of — Sustainability — The involvement of respondent workman were relied upon for initiating disciplinary proceedings but competent Court in criminal cases was in favour of the workman — In fact the employer Company is governed by Model Standing order which provides issuance of charge sheet on commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment — In the instance case the incident of so called loot or loot of bus is neither within the premises of the company nor it could be subject matter of inquiry by company when company was in the picture at all — The submission of the petitioner’s advocate that company reputation is tarnished is a far fetched submission which does not deserve consideration — The Model standing order or the principles of ID Act does not prescribe such incident to be misconduct — Therefore inquiry proceedings were not justified and order passed by Labour Court does not call for any interference.
Held :
The two alleged involvements of respondent workman were sought to be relied upon for initiating disciplinary proceedings but the competent court in criminal cases was in favour of the workman. [Para 17]
The Model Standing Order clearly prescribes the happening of incident on the premises of the factory.
The present case clearly indicate that the employer company was no where concerned with the incident of alleged offence attributed to the workman, as it was never a subject matter of any complaint by the fellow employee or the workman. The tenure of the charge-sheet would indicate that the charge-sheet is laid as if an investigating officer’s finding under the Criminal Procedure Code was laying charges, wherein the company or the fellow workmen or the incident alleged was not shown to be in any manner affecting the function of the company and or the fellow workmen and or the employee or the staff members. The incident of so called loot or loot of bus is purely in the nature of criminal proceedings in the realm of competent investigating authority and the competent court could not have been subject matter of inquiry by the company when the company was in no way in the picture, nor was any company’s employees were harmed or hampered on account of commission of such act which is alleged to have been committed by respondent workman.
The submission of such nature if permitted to be canvassed then mere involvement or even false involvement of workman will be utilized as handi tool for dispensing with services of said workman. The Court hasten to add here that, had there been any misconduct covered under the Standing Order or under Certified Standing Order rendering workman liable to be proceeded against in case of mere involvement in criminal proceeding, then the entire complex would have changed.
Admittedly in the instant case, first of all the incident which is alleged cannot be said to be an incident amounting to misconduct, nor was the same committed in any manner affecting the company even remotely. Therefore the petition being bereft of merits deserve rejection and is accordingly rejected. [Para 19]
Law Laid Down :
Standard to be applied in the criminal case are admitted different than the standard to be applied in a disciplinary proceedings.
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—Heard learned advocates for the parties.
1. The petitioner, first party employer in Reference (LCV) No. 912 of 2000 from the Court of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vadodara, has approached this Court under Article 226 and also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 18/6/2007 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCV) No. 912 of 2000, where under while partly allowing the reference the Court has ordered reinstatement of the workman with 20% backwages and Rs.1000/- cost within 30 days from the date of publication of the award.
2. The facts in brief leading to filing this petition as could be culled out from the pleadings and proceedings deserve to be set out as under.
The workman – respondent herein No. 1 was constrained to raise industrial dispute on account of his dismissal vide order dated 12/9/1998 pursuant to the charge sheet dated 29/12/1997 in respect of this involvement in criminal activities for which investigation was going on and the criminal cases were lodged indicating his involvement in serious offence under Indian Penal Code. The inquiry concluded against respondent workman and the workman was given second showcause notice. The punishment of dismissal was imposed which was subject matter of dispute. The dispute was referred to the competent Court by the competent authority wherein it was marked as Reference (LCV) No. 912 of 2000. The workman filed his statement of claim detailing there under the charge-sheet, allegations in the charge-sheet and non tenability of inquiry proceedings, and prayed for his relief of reinstatement with full backwages and consequential benefits. The employer filed its written statement inter alia contending that the instances narrated in the charge-sheet were serious enough to warrant one and the only punishment that of dismissal, as the workman had committed serious misconduct as prescribed under the Standing Order and thus he his not entitled to receive any relief from the Court in any manner.
3. Consequence of serious punishment could not have been over looked by the inquiry officer and when inquiry officer concluded by recording findings against the delinquent workman the court may not interfere with the same. During the course of hearing before the Labour Court a purshish came to be passed on behalf of the workman which was recorded by the Court on 27/6/2006 being exhibit-20. That the charge-sheet dated 29/12/1997 was pertaining to incident of loot which occurred outside the company premises on 2/8/1997, was belatedly issued. The conducting of inquiry is not disputed, but imposition of punishment is challenged and as criminal case has been resulted into acquittal of the workman, the inquiry officer’s report is challenged and consequent imposition of punishment be quashed and set aside. The Labour Court after recording findings held that the punishment imposed was not commensurate with the misconduct alleged and hence while partly allowing reference directed the employer to reinstate the workman with 20% backwages and continuity of service and amount of Rs.1000/- towards cost. This award dated 18/6/1997 is assailed in this petition under Article 226 and also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the charge-sheet contain allegations against the workman, if proved in the criminal court, then the workman would have been required to undergo serious punishment as the charges of committing loot, robbery etc. were imputed for which the criminal cases were filed. Learned advocate for the petitioner read the entire charge-sheet in order to highlight the seriousness of the charges faced by the delinquent in a criminal case and on that basis learned advocate for the petitioner attempted to justify the order of punishment of dismissal.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that exhibit-20 purshish recorded on 27/6/2006 before the Labour Court was passed over
