Labour Court Appeal in Punjab Haryana High Court Chandigarh

In this post we will discuss about High Court Appeal against order of Labour Court wherein it was held that the appellant Ishwar Singh was liable for dismissal and the fact that the driver Mahavir Singh was put on a lower pay scale and ordered for the recovery of 100 litres of petrol which was held a valid form of punishment.

Labour Court Dispute challenged before High Court in LPA

Also Read- labour court appeal doctypes: punjab – Indian Kanoon

The Labour Court is a court instituted by the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.The law relating to labour and employment in India is primarily known under the broad category of Industrial Law. Industrial law in this country is of recent occurrence and has developed in respect to the vastly increased awakening of the workers of their rights, particularly after the advent of Independence. Industrial relations embrace a complex of relationships between the workers, employers and government, basically concerned with the determination of the terms of employment and conditions of labour of the workers

High Court Appeal against order of Labour Court.

According to Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947-

Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.[1]

Also Read- State Of Punjab And Another vs P.O. Labour Court And

The Court are defined under Section 7 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947-

Labour Courts. –

(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Labour Courts for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act.
(2) A Labour Court shall consist of one person only to be appointed by the appropriate Government.
(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the presiding officer of a Labour Court, unless-
[(a) he is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court; or
(b) he has, for a period of not less than three years, been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge; or
[(d)] he has held any judicial office in India for not less than seven years; or
[(e)] he has been the presiding officer of a Labour Court constituted under any Provincial Act or State Act for not less than five years.[2]

In the present case of Ishwar Singh vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ambala and others[3] the appellant was charged guilty by the Labour Court for fraudulently working with Mahavir Singh and selling diesel. This led to a writ appeal in the High Court which is subsequently being discussed in the following case.

Also Read- labour+court,+union+territory,+chandigarh | India Judgments

Facts

The appellant, who was employed as Clerk with the Haryana Roadways, was posted as Diesel Pump Clerk (DPC) at Kaithal Depot in February, 2009. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him, for he had filled 225 litres of diesel in bus No.HR-64-0190 showing the journey to be undertaken as 1080 kilometres, whereas as per the waybills only a distance of 622 kilometres was required to be covered. Thus, an extra 100 litres of diesel were filled in the bus, which the appellant subsequently sold in connivance with the driver of the bus, namely, Mahavir Singh. The appellant was found guilty by the Inquiry Officer. Accordingly, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 15.03.2011. The departmental appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed by the appellate authority on 29.02.2012. Being aggrieved by his dismissal from service, he also raised an industrial dispute. However, the Labour Court, on a consideration of the matter and the evidence on record, reached a conclusion that the departmental inquiry held against the appellant was fair and proper, and his misconduct was duly proved. Further, in view of the sensitivity of the charges the punishment awarded by the authorities warranted no interference. That being so, even the learned Single Judge, as indicated earlier, dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant.

ALSO READ- SERVICE MATTERS IN LABOUR COURT CAT TRIBUNAL AND HIGH COURT

The appellant states that the driver Mahavir Singh was also guilty of the charges but he was reinstated in service pursuant to an order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the Joint Transport Commissioner Haryana, lacks conviction. Records show that the authorities on a consideration of the case of Mahavir Singh and the attending circumstances thought it fit to reinstate him on the lowest pay-scale of a Driver for a period of two years. Further, a recovery was ordered against him for the loss of 100 litres of diesel. Whereas, the charges against the appellant were far graver and more sensitive as he being the Diesel Pump Clerk manipulated the entries in the relevant register, fabricated the records and filled 100 litres of extra diesel in the vehicle. Further, his case that he was not present on duty on the fateful day i.e., on 24.02.2009 was also proved to be false, for his attendance was duly marked in the Attendance Register. And, the appellant failed to lead even an iota of evidence to prove that the charges levelled against him were false or he was not guilty of the alleged misconduct.

Also Read- Ram Lakhan Singh v. Labour Court, Chandigarh, And Another

Judgement

In the present case after seeing all the circumstances the single judge bench came to the conclusion that he appeals being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. It was instated that the Driver Mahavir Singh was put on a lower pay-scale driver and 100 litres of diesel was also instated to be recovered from him. On the contrary the appellant being the employed as Clerk with the Haryana Roadways, was posted as Diesel Pump Clerk (DPC) at Kaithal Depot was found to be guilty by the Inquiry Office and his appeal in Labour Court was also found to be fair and proper, and his misconduct was duly proved. Further, in view of the sensitivity of the charges the punishment awarded by the authorities warranted no interference.

ALSO READ- LABOUR LAWS THAT EVERY INDIAN SHOULD KNOW

Cases Cited

In an earlier appeal in the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Labour Court the case of Bangalore Water Works and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa[4] which stated that State Government Department is not an industry. In the present case also, petitioner was working with the Labour Department of the State of Haryana, therefore, there is no error committed by the Labour Court. The judgement further instated that the appellant was a contractual worker and the stated has all the rights to discontinue the contract.

Similar Cases

In the case ofJoginder Kumar And Anr vs State Of Punjab[5] the prosecution was booked for indulging in fraud bills at petrol and diesel amounting to `21 lacs and committed fraud. It has further been averred that Rajesh Verma-non-applicant was working as Manager at the petrol pump for the last 18/19 years whereas Parmanand-non-applicant was working as Clerk for the last 10 years. The present charge sheet was filed under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, the accused were arrested and the investigation was due in course, the petition was filed for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Also Read- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP

In the case of Management Of State Bank Of India … vs Industrial Tribunal-I Rep[6]it was stated that when the employee cannot prove any evidence of prejudice against him, it is incoherent for the Court to decipher and therefore the inquiry of the official committee remains valid. Further stated that ,The scope and extent of power conferred, on Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts, under the Industrial Disputes Act, to interfere and set aside orders of punishment, in the context of the disciplinary authority’s failure to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the workman prior to imposition of punishment, did not fall for consideration in ECIL’s case.

The Supreme Court in case Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Management of M/s. Pan American World Airways Inc. and Ors.[7] held that in case the termination of service on account of misconduct which caste stigma then also even if enquiry does not precede the stigmatic order, the termination would not become bad if the employer justifies its stand in adjudication before the Labour Court.

In the case of M/S.Hindustan Unilever Ltd vs The Presiding Officer[8] It is next to be seen whether imposition of the punishment of dismissal from service is proportionate to the gravity of the imputation.It is next to be seen whether imposition of the punishment of dismissal from service is proportionate to the gravity of the imputation. Therefore, considering the gravity of offence, the social and economic burden on the person the punishment is to be taken into consideration.

In the case of State of Punjab Vs. V.K.Khanna[9], the Supreme Court observed that it is well settled in service jurisprudence that the concerned authority has to apply his mind upon receipt of the reply to the charge sheet or show cause as the case may be, as to whether a further enquiry is called for. In the event, upon deliberations and due considerations, it is in the affirmative the enquiry follows but not otherwise.

ALSO READ- CAT APPEAL IN HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH CHALLENGING SENIORITY

Conclusion

Therefore, in the light of all records and material illegalities performed the appellant found by the inquiry of the official inquiry committee it was held that the appellant Ishwar Singh was held liable. The fact that the driver Mahavir Singh was put on a lower pay scale and ordered for the recovery of 100 litres of petrol which was held a valid form of punishment. The gravity of charges on the appellant were grave and therefore, his discharge was held valid.

This post is written by Tanya Gorshi

For case specific advice, please contact best/top/expert Service Matter Expert Lawyer OR Labour Court lawyers in Punjab Haryana High Court Chandigarh or in Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar Mullanpur etc