The Labour Court cannot overturn a dismissal order when the domestic enquiry is fair and the charges are substantiated, even if the punishment seems harsh.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant- M/s. Minerva Mills challenging the order dated 13.08.2019 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.48381/2012 (L-TER) whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition by directing the appellant as under:

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

“If the petitioner pays the amount to the workman within two months, the interest shall be re-worked and calculated at the rate of 3%. In the event, the amount is not paid within two months, the rate of interest as stipulated by the Labour Court would become applicable.”

2. Some of the facts relevant to be noted are that, the respondent herein was working as an Assistant (Grade- III) in the Time Office of the appellant. The respondent was issued with two separate charge sheets dated 07.03.1998 and 24.07.1998 in respect of irregularities committed by the him during his working in the Time Office.

3. In the charge sheet dated 07.03.1998 it was alleged that the first party has drawn wages of a worker by name Sri. K.V. Maruti in the month of November 1997 and the same was not entered on unpaid cash statement. Further, it was alleged that the counter foil pay slip was also misplaced by him.

4. Likewise, in the charge sheet dated 24.07.1998 it was alleged that, the respondent had drawn and utilized the salaries of workers during the period June to August 1997 by manipulating the relevant records. It was further alleged that, the respondent was in the habit of drawing salary of habitual absentees by making use of his position in the Time Office.

5. The appellant herein sought explanation from the respondent on both the charge sheets. Being not satisfied with the explanation, the appellant initiated separate enquiries in respect of both the charge sheets by appointing an outsider namely S.A. Subramanian as an Enquiry Officer. It is stated that the enquiries were conducted spreading over 120 sittings. As the respondent also participated in the said enquiries, he sought the assistance of an Advocate and his request was agreed upon and was permitted to take assistance of an Advocate.

6. It is noted that the appellant examined the witnesses in support of the charges. The Enquiry Officer has proved the charges framed against the respondent in the charge sheets. Thereafter, the copies of the enquiry reports were made available to the respondent along with show cause notice dated 11.12.2000. It appears that the respondent had not given any reply to the notice. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings and decided to dismiss the respondent from service vide order dated 29.12.2000.

7. It appears that, since the dispute in ID No.48/1988 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, an application No.94/1988 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed by the appellant before the Tribunal. The respondent contested the said application. A preliminary issue was framed regarding the validity of the Domestic Enquiry. The Enquiry Officer was examined. All enquiry documents were marked through him.

8. The Industrial Tribunal held that enquiry was fair and proper. Thereafter, the said application No.94/1988 was disposed of vide order dated 13.01.2005 in favour of the appellant. Be that as it may, the respondent approached the Labour/Conciliation Officer seeking reference. Upon failure of the conciliation proceedings, a reference was made by the appropriate government to the Labour Court, which was numbered as Reference No.77/2005 and the same was decided on 02.12.2011. It may be necessary to state here that, even in the Reference Case, an additional issue relating to fairness of the Domestic Enquiry was framed. The Labour Court vide order dated 18.03.2011 held that, the Enquiry Officer has conducted the Domestic Enquiry in fair and proper manner by adhering to the principles of natural justice. Having concluded in that manner, in so far as the main reference is concerned,