CWP No. 8500/2013. Case: State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Ramesh Chand. Himachal Pradesh High Court
| Case Number | CWP No. 8500/2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Parmod Thakur, Addl. AG. And For Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate |
| Judges | Rajiv Sharma, J. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 120(B), 201, 392, 420, 467, 468, 471, 509; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(00), 25(F), 25N |
| Judgement Date | June 02, 2014 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
Judgment:
Rajiv Sharma, J.
1. Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'employer') has challenged award dated 1.9.2012 rendered by learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla in Reference No. 54/2009.
2. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman' for brevity sake) was engaged as Beldar on 4.10.1991. Enquiry Committee was constituted on 19.9.1998 to look into the reasons regarding tampering with the record of vouchers of Chopal Sub Division lying in the Divisional Office in the case of workman. Enquiry Committee concluded that the workman was responsible for tampering with the official record. Enquiry report is dated 24.11.1998. Consequently, a notice was served upon the workman on 26.2.1999, on the basis of which petitioner's services were terminated.
3. Workman raised industrial dispute. State Government made the following reference to the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla:-
Whether the termination of services of Shri Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Dilmee am by the Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Chopal District Shimla H.P. w.e.f. 26.1.1999 on the allegation of misconduct and tempering of office record is proper and justified If not, what relief of service benefits including seniority and compensation the above workman is entitled to
4. Workman filed a claim petition, to which reply was filed by the employer. Case of the workman precisely was that neither any notice was issued to him nor any regular enquiry was held against him. Workman appeared as PW-1. On behalf of the employer, Shri T.S. Chandel appeared as RW-1. Learned Labour Court made award on 1.9.2012. The termination of the workman was declared improper and unjustified and his reinstatement was ordered with immediate effect by giving him benefit of continuity and back wages @ 25%. It is in these circumstances the employer has challenged the award dated 1.9.2012.
5. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the learned Labour Court has erred in law by coming to the conclusion that charge sheet was required to be issued to the workman and a regular enquiry was required to be conducted. According to him, case of the workman did not fall within the ambit of retrenchment. It was a disciplinary action taken against the workman. He then contended that issuance of notice under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act was by way of abundant precaution though not required in law.
6. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan has supported the award dated 1.9.2012.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.
8. The workman was engaged on 4.10.1991. According to the employer, workman was deployed in Chopal office to assist the dealing hand to sort out the record alongwith other workmen in the Accounts Branch of Chopal Division in the month of August, 1998. Divisional Accounts Officer noticed that the name of workman was inserted after overwriting and tampering over the names of other labourers in various muster rolls/vouchers. In order to find whether the workman has tampered with the record, a Committee was constituted, as noticed above, on 19.9.1998. The Enquiry Committee found that the workman was responsible for tampering with the official record. Consequently, workman was issued notice on 26.2.1998 under Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Labour Court has definitely erred in law by coming to the conclusion that a regular enquiry was required to be held against the workman. The workman was only engaged on daily wage basis. The workman while appearing as PW-1 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he was associated by the Enquiry Committee. His version was taken into consideration. Questions were also put to him. A regular enquiry is required to be conducted only if the workman was a regular employee. There was no violation of the principles of natural justice in the instant case. The Enquiry Committee has taken into consideration the statement of other workmen also. The workman has admitted his guilt that he has tampered with the record. The workman alone was to be benefited by the tampering carried out by him to get himself regularized.
9. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate has also argued that FIR was also registered against his client bearing FIR No. 98/1999 dated 3.8.1999 at Police Station Chopal, District Shimla. He was acquitted on 30.7.2002 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chopal. Fact of the matter is that workman has been acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate by giving him the benefit of doubt. There can not be any automatic reinstatement once acquittal is recorded by a criminal Court. Disciplinary proceedings can continue and action can be taken on the basis of findings given by the enquiry officer. In a criminal case, offence is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt whereas during the course of disciplinary proceedings, charges have to be proved only on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
10. Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Lachman Das and another vs. M/s. Indian Express...
To continue reading
Request your trial