Back
2020 Supreme(Ori) 21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Sanju Panda, S.K. Sahoo, JJ.
Vice President, Emami Paper Mills Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9463 of 2019
Decided On : 04-02-2020
Nitish Kumar Mishra, Advocate, A.K. Roy, Advocate, A. Mishra, Advocate, S. Samantaray, Advocate, Suvashis Pattnayak, Advocate, S. Dash, Advocate, S.S. Sahoo, Advocate
Cases Referred
Ajodhya Prasad Bhargava -Vrs.- Bhawani Shankar Bhargava, (1957) AIR(All) 1
Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corp. & Another -Vrs.- Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136
Chairman -cumManaging Director, Coal India Ltd. -Vrs.- Ananta Saha, (2011) 5 SCC 142
Chandrama Tewari -Vrs.- Union of India, (1988) AIR(SC) 117
District Development Officer -Vrs.- Satish Kantilal Amrelia, (2018) 12 SCC 298
Ghaziabad Development Authority -Vrs.- Ashok Kumar, (2008) 4 SCC 261
Government of Andhra Pradesh -Vrs.- A. Venkata Rayudu, (2007) 1 SCC 338
Jagbir Singh -Vrs.- Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another, (2009) 15 SCC 327
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad -Vrs.- Siri Niwas, (2004) 8 SCC 195
R.M. Yellatti -Vrs.- The Assistant Executive Engineer, (2006) AIR(SC) 355
Shashi Bhusan Prasad -Vrs.- Inspector General, (2019) 7 SCC 797
Sita Ram and others -Vrs.- Motilal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, (2008) 5 SCC 75
State of M.P. and others -Vrs.- Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 SCC 575
State of U.P. -Vrs.- Shatrughan Lal, (1998) AIR(SC) 3038
Syed Yakoob -Vrs.- K.S. Radhakrishnan, (1964) AIR(SC) 477
Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation -Vrs.- M.C. Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353
Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar -Vrs.- Union of India, (1999) 7 SCC 409
The judgment establishes the importance of precise and definite charges in a charge sheet, the principles of natural justice, and the appropriateness of reinstatement based on the nature of employment and the passage of time since termination.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 12, Section 10(c) - The judgment discusses the validity of a domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner management against the workman and the subsequent award of reinstatement with full back wages. The court found that the domestic enquiry was not valid and the dismissal of the workman was illegal and unjustified. The court also discussed the principles of natural justice and the requirement for precise and definite charges in a charge sheet. The court held that the workman was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and that the charges were defective. The court also considered the appropriateness of reinstatement and awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,000 in lieu of reinstatement.
Fact of the Case:
The workman was dismissed from service by the petitioner management based on a domestic enquiry. The workman alleged victimization and unfair labour practices by the management. The Labour Court found the domestic enquiry to be invalid and the dismissal of the workman to be illegal and unjustified. The workman sought reinstatement with full back wages and other service benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the domestic enquiry was not valid and the dismissal of the workman was illegal and unjustified. The court also held that the workman was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and that the charges were defective. The court considered the appropriateness of reinstatement and awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,000 in lieu of reinstatement.
Issues: Validity of domestic enquiry, legality and justification of dismissal, entitlement of the workman to relief, appropriateness of reinstatement, and award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for precise and definite charges in a charge sheet, the principles of natural justice, and the need for a reasonable opportunity for the workman to meet the charges. The court also considered the appropriateness of reinstatement and awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement based on the nature of employment, the workman's age, and the passage of time since the termination.
Final Decision: The court found the domestic enquiry to be invalid and the dismissal of the workman to be illegal and unjustified. The court awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,000 in lieu of reinstatement.
JUDGMENT
S. K. Sahoo, J. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to quash the impugned order dated 08.05.2015 (Annexure-4) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No.428 of 1995 in deciding the preliminary issue against the first party management (petitioner in the writ petition) and holding that the domestic enquiry conducted against the second party workman (opposite party no.2 in the writ petition) was not valid. A further prayer has been made in the writ petition to quash the award dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure-5) directing the first party management to reinstate the second party workman in service with full back wages along with all other consequential service benefits within one month from publication of the award by the Government, failing which the second party would be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the monetary benefit.
2. The reference which was made on 04.12.1995 by the Government of Odisha, Labour and Employment Department in exercise of the power conferred upon it by sub-section (5) of section 12 read with clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter 'I.D. Act') to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for adjudication is as follows:
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Emami Paper Mills Ltd., Balgopalpur, Balasore in dismissing Sri Muralidhar Das, Helper from service w.e.f. 10.11.1994 is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
3. It is the case of the opp. party no.2 workman that he was appointed as helper in the establishment of the petitioner w.e.f. August 1991. He along with other workers associated to form a new Trade Union in the name of Emami Sramik Karmachari Sangha for which the management became vindictive and took action against him to victimize on illegal and fabricated charges and suspended him during lock out period by way of unfair labour practice. He was charge sheeted on 06.05.1994 and also suspended on that day just before unauthorized lock out. He prayed to issue odia charge sheet to submit his reply but the management did not issue the same and despite that he denied the charges and agreed to appear in the enquiry with his representative, but the management did not allow his representative though the management appointed one Advocate as an Enquiry Officer. It is the further case of the opposite party no.2 that the Enquiry Officer was partial to the management and basing upon the ex-parte enquiry, the petitioner management dismissed him from service. The opposite party no.2 prayed to set aside the enquiry and cancel the dismissal order with a further prayer to reinstate him in service with all service benefits.
4. The petitioner management filed its written statement before the Labour Court stating therein that before terminating the opposite party no.2 from his service, enquiry was conducted but the opposite party no.2 did not participate in the enquiry despite repeated opportunities being given to him. The Enquiry Officer followed the principle of natural justice and fairly conducted the enquiry and found the opposite party no.2 guilty of all charges and the management carefully considered all the charges, the report of Enquiry Officer and the gravity of incidents and thought it just and proper to terminate the opposite party no.2 from his service for industrial peace and discipline. It is further stated in the written statement that in the event the Court did not accept the enquiry report as just and fair, the management should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the charge sheet framed against the opposite party no.2.
5. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues:
"(i) Whether the domestic enquiry is fair and proper.
(ii) Whether the action of the management of M/s. Emami Paper Mills Ltd., Balgopalpur, Balasore in dismissing Sri Muralidhar Das, Helper from services w.e.f. 10.11.1994 is l
