IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 2986 of 2009 and CWP No. 4337 of 2007 Date of decision: 16.02.2009 Devinder Kumar .....PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Vibhav Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. C.M. No. 2986 of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Annexure P-8 is taken on record. CWP No. 4337 of 2007 In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 17.04.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Ambala (Annexure P-7), vide which the reference has been answered against the workman holding therein that the workman is not entitled to the relief, which he has claimed, under the Industrial Disputes Act, as on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence, which have been placed on record by the parties, it has been established that the order of termination of the workman was in accordance with law. C.M. No. 2986 of 2009 and -2- CWP No. 4337 of 2007 Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman is an ex- serviceman and disabled person. He joined the service of the respondents-Management as Peon on 11.08.1977. He was put under suspension vide letter dated 03.10.1984 and thereafter, served with a charge-sheet dated 14.02.1985. A detailed reply to the said charge-sheet was filed by the workman on 16.02.1985 but the same was not accepted and the respondents appointed an Audit Officer, Marketing Committee, Ambala City as Enquiry Officer. On Enquiry Officer having been appointed and the enquiry proceedings initiated against him, the petitioner submitted an application dated 27.06.1986 to the respondents admitting the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the petitioner was again charge-sheeted on 11.03.1987. He submitted a reply to the said charge-sheet on 12.03.1987, where he had admitted the charges levelled against him. After this, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 13.04.1987 as to why his services be not terminated. To this, a reply was filed by the petitioner and on consideration of the said reply, order of dismissal dated 23.05.1987 was passed against him. Counsel for the petitioner contends that no charges, which were levelled against the petitioner, were admitted by the petitioner and the documents, which are termed as replies in the form of admission of charges, have been denied by the workman before the Labour Court and, therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration for holding that the workman having admitted the charges against him, the respondents were not required to hold a departmental regular enquiry against him. He further contends that for the charge-sheet dated 11.03.1987, a criminal case was also registered against him on the same allegations. This said criminal case animated from FIR No. 138 dated 16.04.1987 under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station, Ambala. After the trial, the workman was acquitted by the Judicial C.M. No. 2986 of 2009 and -3- CWP No. 4337 of 2007 Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City, vide his judgment dated 28.08.1999, copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P-6. He contends that since for the same charges levelled against him, the Criminal Court has acquitted him, the workman deserves to be reinstated. The stand of the respondents before the Criminal Court was also that the workman has admitted his charges and, therefore, he deserves to be punished. He, on this basis, contends that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujrat, 2006 (5) SCC 446, has held that where an employee has been acquitted of the criminal charges levelled against him and if the departmental enquiry or the departmental proceedings are based on the same set of facts, charges, allegations, witnesses, the same cannot be made the basis for terminating the services of the workman. He contends that in the present case, as the charges were the same, the incident was the same, the facts were, therefore, the same and the evidence led by the State did not prove the charges against the petitioner leading to his acquittal by the Criminal Court for the same set of facts and on the same ground of admission, the workman cannot be terminated in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above. He further contends that even if the admission, as made by the workman, is accepted, then also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Krishan vs. The Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 S.C. 376, while dealing with Section 18 and Section 115 of the Evidence Act, has held that the admission made in ignorance of the legal right or under duress is not of binding nature and such admission cannot be relied upon to terminate the services of the workman. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case and the impugned award. C.M. No. 2986 of 2009 and -4- CWP No. 4337 of 2007 It is true that for the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet dated 11.03.1987, a criminal case was also registered against the employee (petitioner) but perusal of the judgment dated 28.08.1999 (Anneuxre P-6) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City, would show that the petitioner-workman was given the benefit of doubt by the Court as it was held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence, which is alleged to have been committed by him. Perusal of the judgment would further show that the prosecution has not, by adducing evidence, proved that the admission of the workman was in his own hand and, therefore, strict Rules of Evidence having not been complied with, the benefit of doubt was given to the workman. The same standard of proof is not required to be applied while dealing with departmental proceedings, here the hear say evidence is also admissible. The Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties, has come to a clear categoric finding that the workman has admitted the charges levelled against him. On the evidence produced by the parties, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that he, in his statement as well as in his cross- examination, has admitted that he has given reply to the charge-sheet dated 14.02.1985, wherein he has admitted the charges levelled against him and further given an assurance that he would not repeat the said mistakes in future. This reply is dated 27.06.1986. On the basis of the said reply, the Labour Court has given a finding that in view of the admission of the workman, the order passed by the competent authority dismissing him from service was as per the statutory rules and, therefore, in accordance with law. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that since he has been acquitted by the Criminal Court of the same charges, therefore, the workman deserves to be reinstated and his C.M. No. 2986 of 2009 and -5- CWP No. 4337 of 2007 reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot be accepted, as observed above, the acquittal was not a clear acquittal but was based on the ground that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt was given to him. Further, the reliance of the counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Krishna (supra) would also not be applicable herein for the simple reason that strict principles of Evidence Act are not applicable to the departmental proceedings and the Labour Court, on the basis of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties and specially the admission in cross-examination by the workman has returned a categoric finding that there is admission on the part of the workman accepting the charges levelled against him. The judgments as relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and, therefore, dismiss the same. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a handicapped person. The Labour Court has, while deciding the reference against him, imposed special cost of Rs. 3,000/-, which may be waived of, in view of the peculiar situation of the present case. He prays that a sympathetic view may be taken in the matter. The prayer of the counsel for the petitioner is accepted. Special cost of Rs. 3,000/- imposed upon the petitioner-workman is waived of. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE February 16, 2009 pj