The non-supply of the enquiry report violated natural justice, rendering the Labour Court's findings perverse and justifying the High Court's intervention.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the “order” dated 24.9.2011 passed by Shri Shiv Kumar Yadav, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in B.S. Case No. 16 of 1996, by which the prayer for setting aside the order of Discharge dated 03.05.1996 of the petitioner from the services of the Company and to reinstate him in service with full back wages under Section 26 (2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, l953 has been rejected, thereby confirming the order dated 03.05.1996 passed by the General Manager (F & A).

2. Heard Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 24.9.2011, passed by the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner has been made a scape goat of the enquiry and has been victimized only for raising voices against the irregularities in the Management. It is further submitted that copy of enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner in violation of the principal of natural justice and he was only allowed to see the Enquiry Report.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this case, has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 (3) SCC 193 at Para 12 and in the case of State of Haryana Ors. V. Devi Dutt & Ors. reported in 2006 (13) SCC 32.

5. It is further submitted that even at the time of enquiry, it was found that the Gross Weight was measured twice on the date of occurrence, i.e. 07.06.1995 and on the second time it was found to be 89.921 MT, which is almost similar to the Gross weight measured for the first time, which was 90.075 MT, although it was reported that 16 pieces of iron rod were missing, weight of which was measured as 6.400 MT.

It is submitted that even during the Domestic Enquiry the witnesses, not only on behalf of the Respondent-Management-Company, but also the petitioner, have stated that the petitioner was only given duty to make the weighment of the material in question and not to count the material and he has acted as per Chalan and has given his finding on the basis of weight measured in the weighment bridge. It is further submitted that even the representative of the Transporter Ajay was not examined by the Company during enquiry and no person from the loading point was enquired and examined by the Management-Company and as such the impugned order passed by the learned Court below may be set aside and the petitioner may be reinstated with full back wages.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent-Company has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that domestic enquiry was held as per norms and it was a fair enquiry and full opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case. It is submitted that the petitioner has caused huge loss to the Respondent Management-Company by colluding with the Transporter M/s M. Prakash & Brothers and it was found on 07.6.1995 that 16 pieces, weighing around 6.400 MT were missing. It is submitted that chargesheet was issued against the petitioner on 22.8.1995 and thereafter, regular enquiry was conducted against him and it was found during enquiry that 16 pieces of Iron rod were missing weighing around 6.400 MT. It is submitted that the copy of the enquiry report was shown to the petitioner and even the second show-cause Notice was issued to the petitioner and for which he has filed his reply on 18.4.1996 against the said enquiry report and the proposed punishment, which has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition and hence, the Department has taken proper decision by discharging the petitioner from the services of Company.

It is submitted that enquiry report is furnished to the petitioner and he had been all