Back
2009 Supreme(All) 262
[2009(2) ADJ 219]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
M/s. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED .....Petitioners
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER AND OTHERS ......Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 16654 of 1989 and 6136 of 1991,
decided on 23rd January, 2009)
Counsel :
Vijay Bahadur Singh and Vijay Sinha for the Petitioner; B.N. Singh, Devendra Pratap Singh, V.K.S. Chaudhary, B.R. Tripathi, S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Termination—Workman—Charge-sheeted for selling Ganja and bhang (narcotics) in establishment—Resulting in his suspension pending enquiry—On enquiry report, he was terminated—Labour Court found that domestic enquiry was not just and proper—And that principles of natural justice has been violated—Petitioner-Co., did not challenge those finding of Labour Court—Meanwhile, an application was given by workman stating that a criminal case was registered against him in respect of same incident, and that in a criminal trial, he was acquitted by trial Court—And stated that employer should not be allowed to prove charges in Labour Court—Labour Court found that there are discrepancies and contradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses—Moreover, when serious allegations were made against workman, neither any charge was framed, nor witnesses proving charges against petitioners made by deposition about recovery of secret materials from workman—Petition No. 6136/1991 of Brindavan allowed to extent that observations of Labour Court in its judgment upholding plea of loss of confidence and consequential direction to terminate his services after giving notice and pay and after following Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, are set aside—And petition No. 16654 of 1989 of petitioner-Company allowed to the extent that workman shall be made entitled to half of back wages, when he was terminated. [U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Section 6-N]. [Paras 14, 18, 19, 20 and 23]
(B) Domestic Inquiry—Burden of proof—There are different standards of proof of charges in a criminal case and domestic enquiry—Whereas in a criminal case, charges must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, in domestic enquiry charges may be proved by preponderance of probabilities—When domestic enquiry held by employer, was not found to be just and proper, burden shifts upon employer to prove charges in Labour Court. [Paras 15 and 16]
Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri Vijay Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.N. Singh appears for the respondents.
2. By an order dated 17.12.2008 the restoration application was allowed on payment of costs and that the writ petition was heard on merits.
3. M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Chakeri, Kanpur is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture of aircrafts, avionics, aircraft accessories, instruments/components etc. The company mainly caters to the requirement of the defence and is wholly owned and controlled by the Central Government.
4. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 31.3.1989 passed by the Labour Court-V, U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 28 of 1983 decided on 31.1.1989. The Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry was not just and fair and allowed the employer to lead evidence. It, thereafter, found that the charges for which the respondent workman was terminated on 7.5.1981 were not established and that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. The Labour Court did not agree with the objections that the employer has lost confidence in the employee and directed reinstatement with full back wages w.e.f. 7.5.1981. The Labour Court has thereafter given an option that if the employer do not wish to reinstatement the workman, it will give him full back wages w.e.f. 7.5.1981 and thereafter terminate his services after giving him one month notice following the provisions under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman was also made entitled to Rs.500/- as costs.
5. The operation of the award was stayed on 16.1.1989 on deposit of Rs. 20,000/- with the Labour Court out of which Rs.10,000/- was to be withdrawn by the respondent-workman without furnishing security and remaining amount was to be kept with the respondent No. 1.
6. The Writ Petition No. 6136 of 1991 filed by the workman-employee of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. as Second Cook seeks to quash the observation contained in para 14 and 15 to direction to retrench in the award dated 31.3.1989 in Adjudication Case No. 28 of 1983 decided by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-V, U.P. Kanpur.
On 3.11.1995 the Court passed following order :
“Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
These two writ petitions are against the same award of the Labour Court. By means of the interim order dated 16th October, 1989, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.20,000/- out of which Rs.10,000/- was paid to the respondent No. 3 without furnishing any security the balance was to remain with respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that the aforesaid order has been complied with. The controversy involved in this case is that when there is a finding of the Labour Court that the employer lost confidence in the employee can there be any order of reinstatement. The second controversy is as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court, that no case has been made out against the petitioner can there be no reinstatement. There are the two legal question involved in this case. This is a case in which a final hearing can be done, as such the parties may apply for final hearing of the case.
Admit.
Issue notice.”
7. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the dispute are that the respondent workman was charge-sheeted on 5.2.1980 for selling ganja and bhang (narcotics) in the establishment. He was suspended pending domestic enquiry. The respondent workman denied the charges in his reply dated 21.5.2000 on which Shri Manvir Singh was appointed as enquiry officer on 16.4.1980 and that after a domestic enquiry the services of the respondent workman were terminated on 7.5.1981.
8. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue on 23.5.1984 as to whether the domestic enquiry was proper and followed the principles of natural justice. By an order dated 13.1.1987 it was found that the domestic enquiry was n
