The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial interference in a domestic enquiry, the principles of evidence applicable in domestic enquiries, and the implications of loss of confidence on reinstatement.

JUDGMENT

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the impugned award of Labour Court dated 28.1.2011 passed in Case No. 6A/ID Act/09 (Ref) by Labour Court No. 2, Gwalior.

Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:

2. The respondent workman was working as a Technician in the petitioner Industry at Malanpur. A charge sheet dated 13/12/2005 was served on the workman alleging that on 15.10.2005, the workman was on duty in shift "B". On the said date, he misbehaved with Shri Sanjay Goyal, maintenance incharge and with Shri A.N.G. Rao, a superior officer. It is alleged that workman has used filthy language against him. Besides the said charge, it is further alleged that on 1.12.2005 the workman joined his duty in shift "B" which was scheduled to be started at 3-30 PM but he forcefully entered the factory before the scheduled time and misbehaved with security guards. He involved himself in an agitation organized by technicians of "A" shift. The said agitation created nuisance in the factory premises. The workman used filthy language against superior officer, Rajvinder Singh. Because of the said incident, work of factory was stopped for a considerable long time.

3. The respondent workman denied the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet by filing reply (Annexure P-3). In turn, the employer appointed an enquiry officer to conduct a domestic enquiry. The enquiry started on 6.1.2006 and ended on 3.8.2007.

4. Shri Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the departmental enquiry, full, reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing was given to the workman. Thereafter, the enquiry report was supplied to the workman and after obtaining his response, by order dated 31.1.2008 the workman was dismissed from service. It is admitted between the parties that the said dismissal dated 31.1.2008 became the foundation of instant industrial dispute, which was ultimately decided by the Labour Court by impugned award dated 28.1.2011.

5. Shri Patwardhan submits that the Labour Court had framed various issues including issue No. 1, which was regarding legality and validity of the departmental enquiry. It is submitted that the said issue was decided by Labour Court on 1.11.2010 (Annexure P-8). The Labour Court after examining the record opined that the departmental enquiry was legal and justified. Thereafter, the parties were heard on remaining issues and by impugned award, the Labour Court set aside the dismissal order and directed reinstatement of workman with full back wages.

6. Criticizing this order, Shri Patwardhan submits that once the legality, validity and correctness of domestic enquiry is upheld by the Labour Court, it was not open to the Labour Court to act as an appellate authority. He submits that the Labour Court has erred in interfering with the punishment of dismissal from service. It is contended that the Labour Court was not required to sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate and re-weigh the evidence. If there was some evidence, it was sufficient to hold the workman as guilty. By taking this Court to the enquiry report, it is urged that there was enough evidence to punish the workman. It is further argued that the Labour Court has erred in applying the principles of criminal law/evidence Act in a matter of domestic enquiry. He further submits that in the enquiry even hearsay evidence is permissible.

7. Learned counsel for the employer further submits that once charges are established considering the gravity of allegations, no interference was warranted. He submits that if the findings of departmental enquiry was held to be perverse by the Labour Court, in that situation, the Labour Court should have permitted the employer to lead evidence. Heavy reliance is placed in this regard on : (1996) 4 SCC 374 (Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. Vs. A.B. Zodge and another) and on a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2010 (3) LLJ 477 (Good Year In