The Labour Court cannot interfere with the punishment order if the departmental inquiry is fair and proper.

JUDGMENT :

(1) In the present writ petition, the petitioner-Company has assailed the Award dated 05.09.2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bharuch below Exh.76 in Reference (LCB) No. 226 of 2005 (published on 10.10.2018); wherein and whereby, the Labour Court has set aside the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the respondent-workman and has directed reinstatement with 100% back wages.

FACTS

(2) The petitioner-Company is engaged in production of various pharmaceutical products, medicines and formulations and having its office at the address mentioned in the cause title of the memo of the present petition.

2.1) The respondent-workman was appointed as a Helper in the plant of petitioner-Company and thereafter he was confirmed as a helper in the Production Department on 01.04.1989. On 10.10.2004, the respondent No.1 was working in the afternoon shift from 3:00 pm to 11:00 pm and he sought permission to leave the office early around 9:00 pm. While leaving from the office premises on his motorcycle, the security guard checked the respondent-workman as per regular procedure. On checking, a packet of white powder was found under the seat cover of the motorcycle of the workman. Later, it was discovered that the said powder was 7-ACCA powder manufactured by the petitioner-Company. The quantity of powder found from the workman was 50 grms. and price of the same was approx Rs.400/-. The said powder was not regularly available in the market and is used in manufacturing of life-saving drugs by the petitioner-Company. The bag of white powder was sealed by the security officers present on the site. Subsequently, on 11.10.2004, the same was sent for testing in the laboratory. The report of laboratory confirmed that the white powder was 7-ACCA powder manufactured by the petitioner- Company.

2.2) On 26.10.2004, the respondent-workman was suspended from the service by an order dated 26.10.2004 pending inquiry. On 06.11.2004, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice cum charge-sheet for unauthorized possession of the white powder and theft, which amounted to violation of various misconducts enumerated in clause No.24 of the Model Standing Order. The respondent-workman replied to the same vide his reply dated 13.11.2004 denying the charge of possession of the unauthorized white powder.

2.3) The petitioner-Company issued a letter dated 22.11.2004 to the respondent-workman informing him that it had decided to conduct an inquiry and accordingly, appointed the Inquiry Officer.

2.4) The inquiry officer, after considering all the evidences, came to a conclusion that the charges levelled against the respondent-workman are proved. The inquiry officer presented a detailed inquiry report dated 09.03.2005 to the petitioner-Company. Pursuant to the aforesaid findings of the inquiry officer, the petitioner issued a second show-cause notice dated 01.04.2005 to the respondent-workman, calling upon him as to why he should not be dismissed from service and sought written explanation from the respondent-workman in this regard. After considering the reply of the respondent-workman, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 23.04.2005, after being paid his terminal benefits.

2.5) The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute, which culminated in Reference (LCB) No.226 of 2005. The Labour Court vide award dated 05.09.2018 allowed the Reference of the respondent-workman and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman in service at his original post and also to make payment of 100% back wages with continuity of service purportedly exercising powers under Section 11A of the I.D. Act.

SUBMISSIONS

(3) Learned advocate Mr.D.J.Bhatt appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Court has failed to appreciate that vide order dated 19.08.2017, it was held that the inquiry conducted by the petitioner-Company was legal and valid and it is settled principle of law that the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal should not ordinarily interfe