High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Bal Chand Gupta v. P.O.Labour Court & Another - WRIT - C No. 7222 of 1989  RD-AH 16855 (26 September 2006)
Judgement Reserved on 21.8.2006
Judgement Delivered on 26.9.2006
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7222 of 1989
Bal Chandra Gupta Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court and another.
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This writ petition is directed against award dated 29.8.1988 and 21.12.1988 given by Presiding Officer Labour Court, U.P. Varanasi in Adjudication Case No. 178 of 1985. Through the first order which is a decision on a preliminary issue, it was decided by the Labour Court that disciplinary proceeding by the employer / respondent No.2 U.P. State Spinning Mills Company, Maunath Bhanjan was not prejudicial to the workman and the said enquiry was conducted in a judicial manner following the principles of natural justice. Through the final award dated 21.12.1988, it was held that order dated 8.11.1984, terminating the services of the petitioner was rightly passed by the employer respondent No.2.
Labour Court held that workman was charge sheeted, he submitted the reply, enquiry officer Sri Vidya Bhushan conducted the enquiry proceedings from 22.10.1983 to 28.10.1983 and witnesses from both the sides were examined during the said period. It was also observed by the Labour Court that on 28.10.1983, enquiry officer Sri Vidya Bhushan noted that none of the parties intended to adduce any other evidence and the said order was signed by both the parties also as a token of acknowledgment. Thereafter services of enquiry officer Sri Vidya Bhushan came to an end. Subsequently Sri Rajendra Gupta was appointed as enquiry officer on 14.5.1984. Thereafter, Sri Rajendra Gupta provided opportunity of hearing to the workman through letters dated 1.6.1984 and 26.7.1984 but the workman did not appear. However, workman appeared before Sri Rajendra Gupta on 6.8.1984 and intimated that Sri Vidya Bhushan previous enquiry officer had concluded the enquiry on 28.10.1983 and had submitted his report on 25.11.1983, exonerating the workman. However employers stated that the copy of the alleged letter / report dated 25.11.1983 was never supplied by Sri Vidya Bhushan to them. Workman had stated that copy of the said order was directly given to him by Sri Vidya Bhushan. Labour Court has mentioned that the letter / report dated 25.11.1983 contains only three sentences to the effect that the enquiry officer did not find the workman to be guilty. Labour Court rightly observed that there was no occasion for the previous enquiry officer Sri Vidya Bhushan to give such letter/ report directly to the workman. Sri Vidya Bhushan was not examined as witness by any of the parties. Labour Court has mentioned that even his address could not be given so that he could be summoned by the court. Labour Court further observed that before Sri Rajendra Gupta the new enquiry officer workman did not produce any evidence and he did not co-operate in the enquiry before him. Rajendra Gupta decided the matter on the basis of evidence, which was adduced before Sri Vidya Bhushan previous enquiry officer. In its order dated 21.12.1988, Labour Court thoroughly analysed the report of the enquiry officer and the evidence which had been adduced in departmental proceedings and rightly came to the conclusion that there was absolutely no flaw in the said enquiry/ findings.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that the earlier enquiry officer had exonerated him hence there was no occasion for second enquiry. This contention is not tenable. Labour Court gave very cogent reasons for holding that the alleged report of exoneration was in fact not submitted by the previous enquiry officer before the employer and the said report was actually no report in the eye of law. In the said report of only three short sentences neither evidence has been discussed nor reasoning has been given. In view of this, it was quite permissible for the employers to appoint new enquiry officer to complete and conclude the enquiry. Before the new enquiry officer, workman did not co-operate and the new enquiry officer was fully competent to give report on the basis of evidence which had already been adduced.
Accordingly I don not find any error in the impugned award hence writ petition is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.