Back
2011 Supreme(Ori) 582
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
M.M. Das, J.
P. AREYA REDDY - APPELLANT
Versus
P.O., LABOUR COURT, BBSR AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (C) No. 14563 of 2007
Decided On : 20-01-2011
The main legal point established is the importance of considering the bona fide belief of the petitioner and ensuring that the punishment imposed is proportionate to the alleged misconduct.
Headnote:
Marital Status - Employment Dispute - [Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 5] - The court discussed the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, particularly Section 5, and its interpretation in the context of the petitioner's marital status and the charges against him. The court emphasized the bona fide belief of the petitioner and the disproportionate nature of the punishment imposed, leading to the modification of the award.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee, faced charges related to his marital status and was compulsorily retired from service. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court to determine the legality and justification of the termination of his services.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's disclosure of his second wife's name was based on a bona fide belief, and the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's marital status, the fairness of the enquiry, and the proportionality of the punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the petitioner's bona fide belief and the disproportionate nature of the punishment, leading to the modification of the award.
Final Decision: The court set aside the termination of the petitioner's service and imposed a minor penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner was reinstated in service with immediate effect and awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000.
JUDGMENT :
M.M. Das, J. - The Petitioner in this writ petition calls in question the award dated 29.6.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No. 3 of 2003.
2. The facts, which are relevant, are as follows:
The Petitioner was an employee under the opp. party No. 1. He was employed as a helper on 8.2.1979. He declared his marital status as married and disclosed the name of his wife as P. Arnapurna Reddy at the time of joining in the service which has been duly entered in the Service Book as well as in the Group Insurance. Later, a complaint was filed by one P. Sharma alleging herself to be the married wife of the Petitioner-workman. The opposite party-management by letter dated 09.10.1990 charge-sheeted the workman framing various charges against him, which are as follows:
(i) furnishing wrong information at the time of entry into Govt. service.
(ii) involving yourself in Bigamous marriage as a Govt. servant.
(iii) violation of Govt. servant conduct rules.
3. The Petitioner was called upon to explain within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said charges as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him. The Petitioner submitted an explanation stating that the statements given by him in his joining report as well as in the Group Insurance Scheme Nomination Form are not inconsistent. He denied the charges levelled against him and stated that he is an illiterate person for which, he preferred to serve as an attendant in the office. He also asserted that P. Arnapurna is his married wife, whose name has been reflected in the official correspondence and denied the claim of the complainant P. Sharma further submitting that said P. Sharma is trying to take revenge against him, as said P. Sharma stays with one P. Purushottam, a mechanic, in the said office. Subsequently, an Enquiring Officer was appointed, who enquired the disciplinary proceeding. In his report, it is reflected that the Petitioner by his letter dated 20.08.1990 intimated the office that Smt. P. Sharma left her before the year 1975 and as per the decision of the "Caste Committee" held on 13.07.1975 in his village, he had given a cultivable land of Ac 1.00 along with some house-hold land to her and thereafter he married Smt. P. Arnapurna. The Enquiring Officer came to the conclusion that there was a Misc. Case relating to demand of interim maintenance filed by said P. Sharma in which, the interim maintenance was awarded, which was confirmed by this Court in a Civil Revision. However, the main case for maintenance is still pending. The Enquiring Officer therefore, concluded that although at the time of joining in the Govt. service, the Petitioner was not living with P. Sharma and their relationship as husband and wife did cease on the basis of the decision of the "Caste Committee" on 13.07.1975, but in the eye of law, they are to be treated as husband and wife and in fact, it is clear that the Petitioner involved himself in bigamous marriage and furnished wrong information at the time of his entering into the Govt. service. Therefore, both the charges are held to be proved against him.
4. The disciplinary authority basing on the enquiry report, gave his finding as follows:
Went through the report of the E.O. The charges against Sri Reddy have been duly established. He has served employment by furnishing wrong information to this office. In view of this, he is compulsorily retired from service.
Accordingly, a letter was issued to the Petitioner retiring him compulsorily from service from the date of issuance of the letter, i.e., 07.03.1992. Against the said order of the compulsory retirement, the Petitioner initiated the industrial dispute, which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court, the reference being, (i) "whether the action of the management of the Director of Text Book Production and Marketing, Bhubaneswar leading to termination of services of Sri P. Areya Reddy by way of compulsory retirement, as punitive measure w.e.
