IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12441 of 1989 Date of Decision : May 12, 2010. Shri Ram Phal ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak, and another. ..... Respondents. C.W.P. No. 12442 of 1989 Date of Decision : May 12, 2010. Ranbir Singh ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak, and another. ..... Respondents. C.W.P. No. 12444 of 1989 Date of Decision : May 12, 2010. Satpal Singh ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak, and another. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for, Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner (in all the petitions.). Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2/Mill (in all the petitions.). AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Counsel for the petitioners states that in compliance with the Order dated 25.03.2010, passed by this Court, the petitioners have deposited Rs. 500/- each in all the three cases with the Legal Services Authority, Haryana, on 10.05.2010. C.W.P. No. 12441 of 1989 and other cases. -2- Counsel for the parties submit that all the three writ petitions, i.e., C.W.P. No. 12441 of 1989 titled as Shri Ram Phal Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak, and another, C.W.P. No. 12442 of 1989 titled as Ranbir Singh Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak, and another and C.W.P. No. 12444 of 1989 titled as Satpal Singh Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak, and another, involve common facts and questions of law and can be thus disposed of by one order. Counsel for the parties have referred to the pleadings in C.W.P. No. 12441 of 1989 titled as Shri Ram Phal Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak, and another, therefore, the facts are being taken from the said writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as a Reeler on 10.11.1979. He was an active member of the oldest workers' union of the respondent/Mill and used to raise his voice against respondent/Mill for their anti labour policies. The working conditions of respondent/Mill was deteriorating day by day and in June, 1984, the situation became very critical. On 28.06.1984, while the petitioner was on duty in shift 'A' and various workers of the union were demanding improvements in the machines and better working conditions, the respondent/Mill with an intention to get rid of the petitioner, levelled false allegations against the petitioner that he broke the threads and many bobins were found entangled and the matter was being investigated, when the petitioner hurled filthy abuses at his senior. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 02.07.1984, to which the petitioner filed reply dated 10.07.1984. The respondent/Mill feeling not satisfied with the reply, appointed Shri J.L. Yadav, Labour Welfare Officer as Enquiry Officer on 11.07.1984. On completion of the inquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 11.08.1984 to respondent/Mill. On consideration of the inquiry report, the respondent/Mill issued a show cause notice dated C.W.P. No. 12441 of 1989 and other cases. -3- 13.08.1984 to the petitioner. On receipt of the show cause notice proposing termination of services of the petitioner in pursuance of the inquiry report, the petitioner made a request dated 16.08.1984 (Annexure-P-4) to respondent/Mill for supply of copy of the inquiry report. To this request, respondent/Mill refused to supply copy of the inquiry report on the ground that it was a secret document. The stand of the respondent/Mill before the Labour Court was that the standing orders do not mandate supply of inquiry report and thus he was not supplied with the same. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 17.08.1984 (Annexure-P-6) to the show cause notice dated 13.08.1984. Thereafter, order of dismissal dated 18.08.1984 (Annexure-P-7) was passed against the petitioner. An industrial dispute was raised, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. On consideration of the pleadings of the parties, four issues were framed and then an additional issue No. 1 was also framed. Additional issued No. 1 was 'whether the domestic inquiry held in the case was fair and proper' ? This additional issue was treated as a preliminary issue and on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court, vide its Order dated 27.10.1986 (Annexure-P-9), held that the domestic inquiry is found to be fair and proper. Thereafter, the Labour Court proceeded to decide the reference against the petitioner/Workman, vide its Award dated 01.05.1989 (Annexure-P-8). Thus, two orders passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak, have been challenged by the petitioner through present writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been held by the Labour Court, vide its Order dated 27.10.1986 (Annexure-P-9) that Shri J.L. Yadav, who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, was the author of the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner/Workman. He was, therefore, biased against the petitioner and the inquiry held by the Enquiry Officer cannot be C.W.P. No. 12441 of 1989 and other cases. -4- said to be in accordance with law. Thus, order dated 27.10.1986 (Annexure- P-9) cannot be sustained. He further submits that despite request made by the petitioner, vide letter dated 16.08.1984 (Annexure-P-4) for supply of copy of the inquiry report on issuance of show cause notice by respondent/Mill, the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of the inquiry report, rather the same was refused by respondent/Mill, vide letter dated 16.08.1984 (Annexure-P-5). He contends that the principles of natural justice have been violated with impunity as the petitioner was deprived of his right to effectively represent and put forth his objections to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. He on this basis contends that the order of dismissal dated 18.08.1984 (Annexure-P-7), passed by respondent/Mill cannot be said to be in accordance with law and, therefore, impugned Award dated 01.05.1989 (Annexure-P-8) deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for respondent/Mill submits that Shri J.L. Yadav was the author of charge-sheet and the Enquiry Officer, would not itself dis-qualify him from being Enquiry Officer. No allegation of biased or objection to his appointment as an Enquiry Officer was raised by the petitioner at the time of appointment of Shri J.L. Yadav as Enquiry Officer. Even during the pendency of the inquiry, no such objection was raised with regard to eligibility of Shri J.L. Yadav to be appointed as an Enquiry Officer or any biased or malafide intention on his behalf, while acting as Enquiry Officer. His further contention is that no such allegation was made by the petitioner/Workman in his demand notice or in claim statement filed by him. These objections should have been raised by the petitioner/Workman at the very outset. Now, these grounds cannot be allowed to be taken as it is an afterthought. C.W.P. No. 12441 of 1989 and other cases. -5- As regard the contention of counsel for the petitioner/Workman that the principles of natural justice have been violated by non supply of copy of the inquiry report by the respondent/management, he submits that the standing orders as applicable to the parties, do not mandate the supply of copy of the inquiry report on conclusion of the inquiry. The inquiry proceedings were supplied to him by the respondent/Management, which fact is admitted by the petitioner/Workman, but in any case, no prejudice was caused to him as second show cause notice was issued to him and he was allowed to inspect the entire inquiry file, which opportunity was availed of by the petitioner and, therefore, it would not amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. He on this basis contends that the Order dated 27.10.1986 (Annexure-P-9) and the Award dated 01.05.1989 (Annexure-P-8), passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak, are fully justified and based on the evidence led by the parties, which does not call for any interference by this Court. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. First contention of counsel for the petitioner that author of the charge-sheet was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, which is not permissible in law as he was a person, who is biased and had an axe to grind against the petitioner, thus, the inquiry proceedings stood vitiated. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any standing order, which would bar the appointment of author of the charge-sheet to be an Enquiry Officer. There was no allegation of malafide or bias against the Enquiry Officer before or during the inquiry proceedings. There is nothing on the record to suggest that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner with the appointment of Shri J.L. Yadav as the Enquiry Officer. The Labour Court on going through the inquiry proceedings and inquiry report had vide Order C.W.P. No. 12441 of 1989 and other cases. -6- dated 27.10.1986 in para-9 held as follow :- “xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 9. Otherwise, I have gone through the enquiry proceedings during the course of which, all through, the petitioner was represented by Shri Manbir Singh a representative of his choice. Each date of proceedings have been signed by the petitioner and his representative. Adjournments were granted as and when asked for by the petitioner because as many as eight dates of hearing were held during enquiry proceedings. At the fag end of the same the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to produce his defence. The petitioner not only cross-examined the witnesses of the management threadbare but the same were recorded in question answer form. That shows the very accurate rendering of the enquiry proceedings by the Enquiry Officer. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, which runs into six foolscape typed pages, are detailed one, in which, evidence adduced has been very able appraised and not the slightest deviation has been made by him from the evidence on record while giving his findings. At no stage of the proceedings, petitioner or his representative took any umbrage against the procedure being adopted by the Enquiry Officer or his conduct was shown to be biased in favour of the Management. So, no infirmity can found with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and as such domestic enquiry held in this case is found to be fair and proper.” The findings recorded by the Labour Court are based on the evidence on record and on its proper appreciation. The findings, therefore, recorded by the Labour Court cannot be said to be without any basis. Since there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner merely because author of the charge-sheet has been appointed the Enquiry Officer would not vitiate the inquiry proceedings as no rule/standing orders had been pointed out or produced by the petitioner, which bars such appointment. No objection was raised by the petitioner at the time of appointment of Shri J.L. Yadav as Enquiry Officer nor was any complaint made about any personal bias or unfair conduct on the part of the Enquiry Officer during the proceedings as well. Thus, the Order dated 27.10.1986 (Annexure-P-9) is in accordance with law and is thus upheld. Next contention, which has been raised by counsel for the petitioner is that despite request made by the petitioner to C.W.P. No. 12441 of 1989 and other cases. -7- respondent/Management to supply him copy of the inquiry report, the same had not been supplied to him, which had deprived him of his right to effectively challenge the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer against him in response to the show cause notice dated 13.08.1984, the principle of natural justice has, thus, been violated by the respondent/Management is also not acceptable. Although, the Standing Orders, which are applicable to the parties, do not mandate the supply of copy of the inquiry report, but when a request for supply of the same is made by a delinquent employee, he is required to be supplied with the same. But, in the present case, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by non supply of copy of the inquiry report as after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to his first show cause notice, second show cause notice was issued before the final proposed order of dismissal was to be passed, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to inspect the entire inquiry file before giving reply to second show cause notice. Thus, due opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before final action of dismissal was to be taken against him. The petitioner was thus free to inspect the records of the entire inquiry file including the inquiry report. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice were not complied with or any prejudice was caused to petitioner to put forth his objections to the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer in his inquiry report. In cases where there is no statutory requirement of supply of copy of the inquiry report alongwith the show cause notice issued to the employee, non supply of the same would not render the order of dismissal illegal. However, where a request for supply of copy of the inquiry report is made by the delinquent official, even if copy of the inquiry report is not supplied to him, but he is given an opportunity to inspect the entire inquiry file including C.W.P. No. 12441 of 1989 and other cases. -8- the inquiry report before passing of final order and reply to the show cause notice as submitted by the employee is considered by the punishing authority, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the employee as he had been given an opportunity to know the contents of inquiry report. This position in law has changed after the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Mohd. Ramzan, AIR 1991 SC 471, where it has been held that the delinquent is entitled to the copy of the inquiry report irrespective of the Rules, if inquiry is held by a person other than the disciplinary authority. But, the order of dismissal in the present case was passed on 18.08.1984, which is prior to the date of decision, i.e., 20.11.1990 in Mohd. Ramzan's case (supra), which has prospective operation. Since no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in the present case, as he had been given an opportunity to inspect the entire inquiry file including the inquiry report, there is no violation of principles of natural justice, which will vitiate the order of termination passed by the Management on consideration of the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner on inspection of the records. The Award dated 01.05.1988 (Annexure-P-8), passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak, thus, cannot be faulted with as the same is in accordance with law. In view of the above, finding no merit in the abovementioned writ petitions, the same stand dismissed. Photocopy of this order be placed on the records of the other two cases. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 12, 2010. sjks.