Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 796
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
Area Manager, F.C.I., Sambalpur - Petitioner
Versus
Adikanda Patra, Mandal and another - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.16360 of 2012
Decided on : 03-11-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s. Achyutananda Routray, U.R. Basita, M. Routray, B. Swarnakar.
For the Opposite Parties : M/s. Satyabrata Mohanty, S.K. Das, S.S. Mohapatra, P.K. Das. (Caveator)
The judgment emphasizes the importance of conducting fair domestic enquiries, providing adequate opportunity for defense, and maintaining parity in punishment for similar charges.
Headnote:
Dismissal - Labour Dispute - Certified Standing Order of the Food Corporation of India - Para- 1, 3, 7, 8 and 12 - [Issue No.1: Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in dismissing Shri Adikand Patra w.e.f. 21.9.2006 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?][Issue No.2: Whether the domestic enquiry held against the workman has been disposed off with due consideration to the principle of natural justice.][Issue No.3: If so, whether the punishment imposed against the workman is proportionate to the charges?][Issue No.4: If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?]
Fact of the Case:
The workman was dismissed from service due to alleged involvement in a criminal activity causing loss to the management. The workman raised a dispute seeking reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court found the dismissal to be unfair and without following the principle of natural justice. It emphasized the lack of adequate and sufficient opportunity provided to the workman to defend himself. The Court also noted discriminatory nature of the punishment compared to similar cases.
Issues: 1. Maintainability of the reference. 2. Fairness of the domestic enquiry. 3. Proportionality of the punishment. 4. Entitlement of the workman to relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The domestic enquiry was not conducted fairly, and the punishment imposed was discriminatory compared to similar cases. The Court emphasized the need for providing adequate and sufficient opportunity to the delinquent employee and the principle of parity in punishment.
Final Decision: The Court reversed the order of dismissal and ordered reinstatement of the workman with all service benefits including back wages and consequential service benefits.
JUDGMENT :
S.N. PRASAD, J.
The award dated 27.04.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.25 of 2007 is challenged by the Management whereby and where under the workman has been directed to be reinstated in service till his retirement and to get all service benefits including back wages and consequential service benefits.
2. The fact leading to this case is that the workman was working as a Mondal in Food Storage Depot at Hirakud under the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sambalpur. Subsequently he was transferred to F.S.D., Barbil. While working as such he was suspended vide order dated 30.3.2004 by the District Manager, Sambalpur in contemplating for initiation of a departmental proceeding because of his alleged involvement in a criminal activity which has caused loss to the property of the Management. A memorandum with article of charges and statement of imputation of misconduct has been served upon the workman on 22.4.2004 directing him to submit written statement of defence within fifteen days of the receipt of the memorandum. He had submitted written statement explaining in detail that the allegation and charges are untrue and baseless and had been made to victimize him for his trade Union activities.
The management being not satisfied with the explanation has started a regular departmental proceeding, the Enquiry Officer has proceeded with the matter in a great haste and found the charges proved, Disciplinary Authority after accepting the same has inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service. Therefore, the workman has raised a dispute raising his grievance before the appropriate authority to reinstate him in service with full back wages along with consequential benefits.
3. While on the other hand, case of the management is that in the year 2004-05 when a huge fraud in the guise of Income Tax refund was detected in FCI, Sambalpur District by Internal Audit in which most of the departmental workers of FCI, Sambalpur in connivance with some officers/officials of FCI have received an amount of Rs.2.64 crores fraudulently. The matter was enquired by the C.B.I./High Power Committee from F.C.I. Headquarters, New Delhi and the excess amount received by the workers was recovered from their wages in monthly installments. The said recovery was challenged by the workers individually and through FCI Workers Union before various legal forums, but all the cases were disposed of in favour of the Food Corporation of India. The workman herein while working at FCI, FSD, Hirakud was also a recipient of Rs.1,13,500/- fraudulently towards Income Tax refund. Being aggrieved by recovery, the workman along with other departmental workers of other depots of FCI, Sambalpur District entered into the premises of District Office, FCI, Sambalpur on 19.2.2004 and assaulted the officials and disrupted the official work. The workman as such committed serious misconduct which is unbecoming of a Corporation worker and thereby made himself liable to disciplinary action as per the provision contained in Para- 1, 3, 7, 8 and 12 of Clause 15 of the Certified Standing Order of the Food Corporation of India and accordingly enquiry was conducted in which he was provided opportunity of being heard and the Enquiry Officer has found the charges proved against him. Thereafter the order of punishment has been imposed which is dismissal from service.
4. The Management contends that considering the nature of allegations the order of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate. It is in the light of these factual aspects of the matter, the following reference was made:-
“Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in dismissing Shri Adikand Patra w.e.f. 21.9.2006 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”
The Labour Court in order to reach to a rightful conclusion had called upon the parties to come with documents in order to answer the following issues:-
1. “Whether the refe
