Back
2019 Supreme(All) 808
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd Thru General Manager And Others - Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer Labour Court Lko And Another - Respondent
Miscellaneous Single No. 30350 of 2016
Decided on : 04-07-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Sudhanshu Chauhan, Adv., Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Adv., Ambrish Kumar Pandey, Adv., Amit Bose, Adv., Ashok K Shukla, Adv.
Headnote:
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act – Section 6(2-A) – Challenging Award passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court – Whether removal from service of respondent was justified and if not, to what effect – Held, Labour Court certainly interfered in punishment under Section 6(2-A) of U.P. Act but parameters for exercise of such discretion clearly laid down by Supreme Court in its several decisions where observed that interference should be minimal where there is admitted loss to employer and there is loss of confidence also in employee – Award passed by Labour Court to completely vitiated in so far as it directs reinstatement with consequential benefits and payment of 50% back wages – Labour Court further permitted recovery of loss of from dues of employee was offered by employee to Mill – If such recovery has been made from dues of employee, same not returned by Mill as punishment order suffers from no infirmity – Salary drawn by respondent during period of his reinstatement on account of interim order of this Court not be recovered from him as he has worked during period – However, Continuity in service etc arising out of Labour Court award not admissible to respondent – Petition partly allowed. (Paras: 41 to 43)
Facts of the case:
Challenging Award passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court – Whether removal from service of respondent was justified and if not, to what effect.
Findings of the court:
Labour Court certainly interfered in punishment under Section 6(2-A) of U.P. Act but parameters for exercise of such discretion clearly laid down by Supreme Court in its several decisions where observed that interference should be minimal where there is admitted loss to employer and there is loss of confidence also in employee – Award passed by Labour Court to completely vitiated in so far as it directs reinstatement with consequential benefits and payment of 50% back wages – Labour Court further permitted recovery of loss of from dues of employee was offered by employee to Mill – If such recovery has been made from dues of employee, same not returned by Mill as punishment order suffers from no infirmity – Salary drawn by respondent during period of his reinstatement on account of interim order of this Court shall not be recovered from him as he has worked during period – However, Continuity in service etc arising out of Labour Court award not admissible to respondent.
Result: Petition partly allowed
JUDGMENT :
Sangeeta Chandra, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amit Bose for respondent no.2.
2. The petitioners, a Cooperative Sugar Mill, have challenged the Award dated 9.8.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lucknow in Adjudication Case No.58 of 2006.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Sudhanshu Chauhan that respondent no.2 was appointed as a daily wage Weighment Clerk on seasonal basis on 1.6.1983 and was made permanent on the post of Seasonal Weighment Clerk w.e.f. 1.1.1988. On 8.2.1991, the respondent no.2 was placed under suspension for wrongly weighing an empty vehicle as allegedly carrying cane, thereby causing a loss of two quintals of cane to the Mill.
4. During the enquiry, the respondent no.2 admitted the misconduct and apologized and was allowed to continue in service. On 19.3.1998, respondent no.2 purchased 8156.71 quintals of cane and supplied only 7828.48 quintals of cane to the Mill, thereby misappropriating 228.23 quintals of cane worth Rs.14,964.48. The respondent no.2 was again placed under suspension but he admitted his misconduct and apologized. He was let off with a warning.
5. In between 29.12.1998 and 2.1.1999, respondent no.2 was posted as Weighment Clerk at Purchase Centre Rampur Mathura-B situated at Sitapur. He purchased 5218.79 quintals of cane and supplied only 4425.18 quintals of cane. The loss of 793.61 quintals of cane resulted in misappropriation of Rs.61,107.97. Also, respondent no.2 did not handover charge of 50 quintals of leftover cane on the plot at the Purchase Centre to the incumbent transferred in his place, namely, Ram Kripal Dhar, who was posted at the said Purchase Centre w.e.f. 3.1.1999. It led to a loss of 50 quintals of cane. Moreover, respondent no.2 also absented himself from work w.e.f. 3.1.1999 to 5.1.1999 for which, he was suspended on 7.1.1999. A charge sheet was issued to him in respect of three charges on 27.5.1999.
6. Respondent no.2 filed his reply on 25.10.1999 to the charge sheet, where he admitted the loss of 793.61 quintals of cane, but alleged that Rampur Mathura-B Purchase Centre was adjacent to Rampur Mathura-A Purchase Centre and some farmers taking advantage of the crowd had got their cane weighed again at Rampur Mathura-A Purchase Centre. Respondent no.2 alleged that he was inexperienced and, therefore, prayed that whatever loss has been caused to the Mill, should be recovered from his dues by adjustment in future. With regard to the second charge of loss of 50 quintals of cane, the respondent no.2 alleged that before he could handover the charge, again farmers had lifted the said leftover cane. With regard to the third charge of absence w.e.f. 3.1.1999 to 5.1.1999, the respondent no.2 submitted a medical certificate, saying that he was suffering from cold and fever. The enquiry officer fixed the date for personal hearing and examination of witnesses on 31.1.1999. The respondent no.2 was examined as also the employers witnesses. Respondent no.2 was given opportunity to cross-examine the employer's witnesses also. However, he stated before the enquiry officer that he had nothing further to say except that some farmers had taken advantage of the situation regarding the two Purchase Centres and had got their cane weighed fraudulently. However, respondent no.2 refused to tell the names of such farmers on the ground that they were influential people and that he would face a threat to his life. Respondent no.2 also admitted that he did not file any FIR nor sent any written complaint to the occupier of the Mill with regard to conduct of certain cane growers. With regard to the second charge, respondent no.2 admitted that some farmers had lifted 50 quintals of leftover cane, as the charge could not be handed over to Ram Kripal Dhar as respondent no.2 fell ill.
7. The enquiry officer on the basis of statements recorded during personal hearing, sent an enquiry report dated 4.11.1999 to the petitioners fi
