Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. NEW DELHI versus P.A. CENTRAL GOVT. I.T. CUM LABOUR COURT & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. New Delhi v. P.A. Central Govt. I.T. Cum Labour Court & Another - WRIT - C No. 32321 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 7412 (13 December 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.31

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.32321 OF 1997

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

New Delhi.                                                          ......Petitioner

Versus

The Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur and another.                                        ......Respondents

----------  

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

List is revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.  No one appears on behalf of the respondents till date.    I am proceeding to hear this case.  

The present petition has been filed seeking two relieves.

The first relief is to call for the records of  I.D. Case No.3 of 1992 and to quash the order dated 6.6.96 and award dated 4.3.97 (Annexure-1 & 2 to the writ petition) and the second relief is to issue any other writ, order or direction.

The facts of the present case are that respondent No.2 Sri J.P. Bidharam was working with the petitioner as a helper who used to accompany the truck of the petitioner Corporation.  

On 11.10.88 an incident occurred, during which, it was found that the respondent No.2 was involved in subversive acts of discipline, theft, fraud and dishonesty in connection with the petitioner's business as the truck of the petitioner was found depleted to the oil that it was carrying.

According to the petitioner, Sri J.P. Bidharam was on duty on 11.10.88 and was accompanying the truck as a helper.  The facts as stated by the respondent workman was that on 11.10.88 his wife has become ill and, therefore, he has moved a leave application that he should be granted leave, which  according to his case, was granted by the Deputy Manager at that time Shri G.B. Raizada.  The petitioner was charge sheeted by the Corporation and he faced a domestic enquiry in which, according to the petitioner, he participated actively and in fact gave in writing to the petitioner by way of a letter dated 14.8.89 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) that the enquiry proceedings against him be closed.  Accordingly, the enquiry proceedings were closed as per his request on 21.9.89. (Annexure-5 to the writ petition.   The Enquiry Officer found the delinquent employee guilty.  The version of the respondent workman was that he was on leave. Because the leave application dated 11.10.88 as produced by him was not in the original  and could not be proved before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer,  came to the conclusion that the collusion of the respondent workman who was a helper was well established and, therefore, the punishment of termination of service was justified.  

The respondent workman sought an industrial dispute.  The order of reference reads as herein below.  :-

"Whether the Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Limited, New Delhi was justified in dismissing Sri J.P.  Bidharam w.e.f.  7.2.91?  If not what relief the workman is entitled."

While deciding the reference, an issue was also framed with regard to the propriety of the domestic enquiry.  The Labour Court has also passed an order dated 6.6.96 which is also under challenge in the present petition.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the order-dated 6.6.96, which records that up to a point, the enquiry was fair and proper and, thereafter, the respondent workman was not given a proper opportunity to give his evidence and substantiate his case.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner's argument is  correct because of the letters as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition dated 14.8.89 by which, the workman himself said that he wished to have the enquiry proceedings concluded and did not wish to say anything.  

Counsel for the petitioner has urged that it is on account of this letter dated 14.8.89 that the Enquiry Officer thereafter concluded the enquiry proceedings.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that that the order dated 6.6.96 is vitiated and the enquiry proceedings were fair and proper and in accordance with natural justice.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the only question, which was left for the Tribunal to decide in the facts and circumstances of this case was that of quantum of punishment.  

However, since the order dated 6.6.96 was passed against the petitioner Corporation, it sought to lead fresh additional evidence before the Labour Court.  

While wanting to lead additional evidence before the Labour Court, the petitioner Corporation stated in their application dated 24.12.96 that they wanted to produce Shri G.B. Raizada who was since then retired, to come and prove his signature on the leave letter dated 11.10.88.  However, the application dated 24.12.96 was rejected by the Labour Court.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that not only the petitioner Corporation was prevented from producing Shri G.B. Raizada but also a prayer made by the petitioner Corporation to call for a handwriting expert was also rejected.  The Labour Court in its award simply states that the letter dated 11.10.88 stood proved by virtue of the evidence of

Shri Dilbag Rai, Deputy Manager.  

There is force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.  The order dated 6.6.96 does not take into account that in fact the enquiry was concluded on the request of the workman himself.  The second portion of the order dated 6.6.96 is clearly vitiated.  

There is also force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that if the enquiry had been upheld, only the quantum of punishment would have been remained.  The order-dated 6.6.96 has prejudiced the petitioner Corporation to this extent.

There is also force in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that while giving the petitioner an   opportunity to give additional evidence, in fact no opportunity was given because the petitioner was prevented from establishing the fact that the leave letter dated 11.10.88 in fact did not contain signature of Shri  G.B. Raizada.  Shri G.B. Raizada had been summoned to Court even though he has retired, to prove his signature but was prevented from doing so.  

The petitioner's second prayer to prove the letter dated 11.10.88 as false and fabricated was also rejected by the Labour Court when they did not permit the petitioner to produce handwriting expert.

I have gone through the enquiry proceedings and evidence on record.  It appears that the respondent workman was closely related to the persons who were found guilty at the time when the truck was abandoned and was found by the police who have been robbed.  His role in the theft, thus can not be ruled-out.  The defense adopted by him by showing a leave letter dated 11.10.88, which was not completely proved would not have come to his aid unless proved and established  beyond doubt.  

In view of the above discussions, I hold that the order dated 6.6.96 is vitiated and hence set aside.  The resultant award dated 4.3.97 also stands vitiated and is hereby set aside.

The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.  

Dated : 13.12.05

L.F.

COURT NO.31

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.32321 OF 1997

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

New Delhi.                                                          ......Petitioner

Versus

The Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,

Kanpur and another.                                        ......Respondents

----------  

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

List is revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.  No one appears on behalf of the respondents till date.    I am proceeding to hear this case.  

The present petition has been filed seeking two relieves.

The first relief is to call for the records of  I.D. Case No.3 of 1992 and to quash the order dated 6.6.96 and award dated 4.3.97 (Annexure-1 & 2 to the writ petition) and the second relief is to issue any other writ, order or direction.

The facts of the present case are that respondent No.2 Sri J.P. Bidharam was working with the petitioner as a helper who used to accompany the truck of the petitioner Corporation.  

On 11.10.88 an incident occurred, during which, it was found that the respondent No.2 was involved in subversive acts of discipline, theft, fraud and dishonesty in connection with the petitioner's business as the truck of the petitioner was found depleted to the oil that it was carrying.

According to the petitioner, Sri J.P. Bidharam was on duty on 11.10.88 and was accompanying the truck as a helper.  The facts as stated by the respondent workman was that on 11.10.88 his wife has become ill and, therefore, he has moved a leave application that he should be granted leave, which  according to his case, was granted by the Deputy Manager at that time Shri G.B. Raizada.  The petitioner was charge sheeted by the Corporation and he faced a domestic enquiry in which, according to the petitioner, he participated actively and in fact gave in writing to the petitioner by way of a letter dated 14.8.89 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) that the enquiry proceedings against him be closed.  Accordingly, the enquiry proceedings were closed as per his request on 21.9.89. (Annexure-5 to the writ petition.   The Enquiry Officer found the delinquent employee guilty.  The version of the respondent workman was that he was on leave. Because the leave application dated 11.10.88 as produced by him was not in the original  and could not be proved before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer,  came to the conclusion that the collusion of the respondent workman who was a helper was well established and, therefore, the punishment of termination of service was justified.  

The respondent workman sought an industrial dispute.  The order of reference reads as herein below.  :-

"Whether the Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Limited, New Delhi was justified in dismissing Sri J.P.  Bidharam w.e.f.  7.2.91?  If not what relief the workman is entitled."

While deciding the reference, an issue was also framed with regard to the propriety of the domestic enquiry.  The Labour Court has also passed an order dated 6.6.96 which is also under challenge in the present petition.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the order-dated 6.6.96, which records that up to a point, the enquiry was fair and proper and, thereafter, the respondent workman was not given a proper opportunity to give his evidence and substantiate his case.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner's argument is  correct because of the letters as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition dated 14.8.89 by which, the workman himself said that he wished to have the enquiry proceedings concluded and did not wish to say anything.  

Counsel for the petitioner has urged that it is on account of this letter dated 14.8.89 that the Enquiry Officer thereafter concluded the enquiry proceedings.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that that the order dated 6.6.96 is vitiated and the enquiry proceedings were fair and proper and in accordance with natural justice.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the only question, which was left for the Tribunal to decide in the facts and circumstances of this case was that of quantum of punishment.  

However, since the order dated 6.6.96 was passed against the petitioner Corporation, it sought to lead fresh additional evidence before the Labour Court.  

While wanting to lead additional evidence before the Labour Court, the petitioner Corporation stated in their application dated 24.12.96 that they wanted to produce Shri G.B. Raizada who was since then retired, to come and prove his signature on the leave letter dated 11.10.88.  However, the application dated 24.12.96 was rejected by the Labour Court.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that not only the petitioner Corporation was prevented from producing Shri G.B. Raizada but also a prayer made by the petitioner Corporation to call for a handwriting expert was also rejected.  The Labour Court in its award simply states that the letter dated 11.10.88 stood proved by virtue of the evidence of

Shri Dilbag Rai, Deputy Manager.  

There is force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.  The order dated 6.6.96 does not take into account that in fact the enquiry was concluded on the request of the workman himself.  The second portion of the order dated 6.6.96 is clearly vitiated.  

There is also force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that if the enquiry had been upheld, only the quantum of punishment would have been remained.  The order-dated 6.6.96 has prejudiced the petitioner Corporation to this extent.

There is also force in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that while giving the petitioner an   opportunity to give additional evidence, in fact no opportunity was given because the petitioner was prevented from establishing the fact that the leave letter dated 11.10.88 in fact did not contain signature of Shri  G.B. Raizada.  Shri G.B. Raizada had been summoned to Court even though he has retired, to prove his signature but was prevented from doing so.  

The petitioner's second prayer to prove the letter dated 11.10.88 as false and fabricated was also rejected by the Labour Court when they did not permit the petitioner to produce handwriting expert.

I have gone through the enquiry proceedings and evidence on record.  It appears that the respondent workman was closely related to the persons who were found guilty at the time when the truck was abandoned and was found by the police who have been robbed.  His role in the theft, thus can not be ruled-out.  The defense adopted by him by showing a leave letter dated 11.10.88, which was not completely proved would not have come to his aid unless proved and established  beyond doubt.  

In view of the above discussions, I hold that the order dated 6.6.96 is vitiated and hence set aside.  The resultant award dated 4.3.97 also stands vitiated and is hereby set aside.

The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.  

Dated : 13.12.05

L.F.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.