The employer must provide credible and material evidence to support charges and adhere to the principle of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The employer/petitioner, herein, has put a challenge to the judgment / award dated 7th October, 2010, as it has been passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Adjudication Case No. 175 of 2008 (Old Case No. 6 of 2006), as it was published on 26th November, 2009.

3. The question, which was referred to be decided by virtue of the G.O. No. 624-29/Haldwani CP64(K)/2005 dated 6th February, 2006, was to the following effect :-

^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh gjhnRr tks'kh iq= Jh :nze.kh tks'kh] odZesV flfoy] dh lsok;sa fnukad 31&01&1998 ds vkns'k }kjk lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr gS \ ;fn ugha rks lEcfU/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ RkFkk vU; fdl&fdl fooj.k lfgr\**

4. In a nutshell, the reference which was made to be adjudicated by the Labour Court, while exercising its powers under 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, was as to whether, the act of the employer of dismissing the services of the workman w.e.f. 31st January, 1998, was just and proper or not ?

5. To summarize the basic issues, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned award is, that the action taken by the employer on 31st January, 1998, of dismissing the services of the workman did not suffer from any legal vices because, all cannons of law, including adherence of principle of the natural justice was appropriately followed by the employer, and ample of opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself and thus, the action taken by the employer was well within the cannons of law, which does not require an interference by this Court, in the exercise of powers by this Court in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. While on the contrary, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent, that in fact, there is an absolute non adherence of the principle of natural justice for the reason being, that according to his contention, once a workman is charged by the employer of having committed a misconduct contrary to the service rules applicable to it, the charge is a prerogative of the employer depending of facts, who formulates the same to be put to an inquiry officer, but then the charge has had to be based upon credible and material evidence, which is to be scrutinized by the employer prior to framing a charge against the employee, which could be justified to be serious enough to entail an imposition of a major punishment. His argument is, that when the charge has been framed by the employer thereby intending to dismiss the services of the workman, then it is rather the responsibility of the employer who has to discharge to prove the sanctity of the charges levelled by him against the workman, by leading evidence to the said effect, when the proceedings are taken, to establish that the charge actually stands proved by the evidence, which was to be discharged by the employer and if, the said aspect is not discharged by the employer, the consequential punitive action taken, without establishing the factum and basis of charge against the workman of dispensing the services would be in absolute and utter violation of principle of natural justice.

7. Rather to the contrary, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the issue pertaining to, as to who has to discharge the burden of proof of a charge, this Court is of the view, that it was the employer, which has been shifted to be discharged by the workman, and in relation thereto, he submits, that the workman has not led any evidence to prove his innocence as against the charge, which has been levied by the employer, which could have necessitated the termination of services.

8. In response to it, in a nutshell, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued, that the occasion for the workman to lead evidence, either documentary or oral or by way of a cross examination, its’ only necessitated when the employer hi