Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N. L. Ganguly, J.
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. - Appellant
Versus
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 97 Of 1986
Decided On : 08/24/1995
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - DOMESTIC ENQUIRY - VALIDITY - CHARGE-SHEET ISSUED BY INCOMPETENT AUTHORITY - SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY - EFFECT - WORKMAN'S PARTICIPATION IN ENQUIRY - NO PREJUDICE CAUSED - ENQUIRY NOT VITIATED.
Fact of the Case:
A workman was dismissed from service after a domestic enquiry found him guilty of theft. The workman challenged the dismissal on the ground that the charge-sheet was issued by an incompetent authority and that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Standing Orders. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was unfair and not in accordance with law and Standing Orders and ordered the reinstatement of the workman.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Labour Court was justified in holding that the domestic enquiry was unfair and not in accordance with law and Standing Orders. The Court held that the charge-sheet was issued by an incompetent authority and that the subsequent approval by the competent authority did not cure the defect. The Court also held that the workman's participation in the enquiry did not amount to a waiver of his right to challenge the validity of the enquiry.
Issues: 1. Whether the charge-sheet was issued by an incompetent authority? 2. Whether the subsequent approval by the competent authority cured the defect? 3. Whether the workman's participation in the enquiry amounted to a waiver of his right to challenge the validity of the enquiry?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the charge-sheet was issued by an incompetent authority because it was not signed by the Head of Department as required by the Standing Orders. The Court held that the subsequent approval by the Head of Department did not cure the defect because there was no provision in the Standing Orders delegating the power to issue charge-sheets to any other person. 2. The Court held that the workman's participation in the enquiry did not amount to a waiver of his right to challenge the validity of the enquiry because he had not raised any objection to the validity of the charge-sheet or the enquiry proceedings.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the award of the Labour Court.
( 1 ) M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. , petitioner (here-in-after referred to as BHEL), challenged the award dated September 23, 1985 given by the Labour Court, Meerut in Adjudication Case referred under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act.
( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case show that Sri Ved Singh Panwar was employed at the petitioners establishment as a Tradesman (Grade IV) since October 15, 1974 in the Production Department. On February 24, 1978 when he was going out of the factory through the Main gate during the lunch, was checked by the Security Staff and found carrying five pieces of Babbits weighing about 2. 5 kgs. belonging to the Company. The search was made by the Security Staff in presence of witnesses which was found in coat pockets and hidden in underwear (Langot ). In the petition, it is said that he confessed the guilt at the time of search in presence of certain witnesses. The written and signed statement admitting the guilt has been annexed. The recovery memo etc. was prepared. The Senior Manager (Production) issued a charge-sheet to the respondent on February 25, 1978 for and on behalf of the Head of Department of the Production Unit. The; respondent was also placed under suspension during the enquiry.
( 3 ) DURING the preliminary enquiry proceedings, the respondent denied the allegations. After; consideration of the explanation of the respondent with the report of the preliminary report, the dy. General Manager (Production), who is Head of the Production Department, nominated enquiry Officer according to the Standing Orders. Notice was given to the respondent by the enquiry Committee constituted. The respondent appeared before the domestic enquiry and participated in the proceedings. The enquiry report was submitted before the Head of department who concurred with the enquiry report that the respondent workman was guilty of theft. The respondent was dismissed from the service of the Company by order dated September 9, 1978.
( 4 ) A First Information Report was also lodged against the workman respondent. Criminal Case no. 500 of 1979 was initiated against the workman before the Munsif Magistrate, Hardwar much after his dismissal. The workman respondent was acquitted by the Magistrate on April 24, 1980. After acquittal from the Criminal case, the workman moved an application with the copy of the judgment of the Magistrate for reinstatement but the petitioner declined to reinstate the respondent.
( 5 ) A conciliation proceeding started on application of the respondent and no settlement before the Conciliation Officer could be made. Hence a reference under Section 4-K of U. P. Industrial disputes Act was made for adjudication before the Labour Court, giving rise to the impugned award.
( 6 ) THE question referred for adjudication is whether the employer had terminated and dismissed the workman Ved Singh Panwar, according to law and was justified/legal. If not, what relief and remedy the workman is entitled to ?
( 7 ) THE respondent workman had filed written statement and pleaded that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner and various evidences of the witnesses had been manipulated by the enquiry Officer. It was also pleaded that the charge-sheet was not served nor signed by the competent person and the Enquiry proceedings were against the prescribed procedure provided under the certified standing orders of the Company. The respondent had denied the allegation of theft labelled against him. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
( 8 ) SRI Tarun Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner elaborately placed the case and drew the attention of the Court to the copy of the charge-sheet, Annexure 4. served against the respondent. He pointed out that the charge-sheet was signed by Sri V. K. Varman for and on behalf of the head of Department. He submitted that there was no illegality or procedural error in serving the charge-sheet under the signature of Sri V. K. Va
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
