CWP No.7986 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.7986 of 1992 Date of decision July 22, 2009 The Haryana Co-op.Sugar Mills Ltd., Rohtak ....... Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. P. K. Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes K. Kannan, J. 1. A Crane fitter-Sunder Singh who was ordered to be terminated from service after a domestic enquiry sought for a reference impeaching the findings in the enquiry and the Labour Court found that the charges attributed to him had not been established and found the order of dismissal as bad and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The Management is the aggrieved party who challenges the award passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak by means of writ petition. 2. The gravamen of the charge against the crane fitter was that during the intervening night of 23-24.3.1979, 3 plumber blocks attached to the crane had been broken within a span of 16 hours and the crane fitter alone was responsible for its maintenance. According to the Management, the breakage of the plumber blocks was on account of the negligence in not aligning them properly and to take care of its CWP No.7986 of 1992 2 maintenance. The Management ordered a domestic enquiry that resulted ultimately in a finding of guilt based on which the termination order was effected. Before the Labour Court the decision of the Management terminating his services and the findings of the enquiry officer were challenged. It was urged before the Labour Court that the enquiry had not been properly held and in any event the punishment was grossly disproportionate. There was yet another charge which had also been made against the workman namely, of his absence on 27.3.1979 and 28.3.1979 during the days of general cleaning of machinery for maintenance and it amounted to misconduct. The enquiry Officer found that the misconduct was established but the Labour Court accepted the contention of the workman. 3. The Labour Court at the enquiry found that during the relevant time when the plumber blocks had been broken the workman was not actually present and his duty hours finished the previous evening at 5.00 P.M. itself and the defect caused for the breakage could not be attributed to him. The Labour Court also reasoned that it was admitted by the Management witnesses that the alignment of the plumber blocks had been done by nearly 5 months earlier by M/s Prem Engineering Works and therefore, the fitter could not be responsible for its breakage due to the alleged mal-alignment. Adverting to the evidence that the crane operator himself had not immediately complained about the breakage of the plumber block and that the engineer was bound to have noticed the condition of the plumber blocks at the relevant time and since no action had been taken even against that engineer, the finding that the workman alone had been responsible for the breakage of the plumber blocks was illegal. The Labour Court also found that a defective alignment could come at any time in spite of the fact that it had been maintained properly and the enquiry officer was not justified in holding that the workman alone was responsible for the CWP No.7986 of 1992 3 accident. He found that the enquiry officer's report was unwarranted. The denial of opportunity to the workman to secure the help of a Vice President of the Mill Union during the enquiry proceedings was against principles of natural justice. The Labour Court also found that there was no cogent evidence on record that the plumber blocks themselves had been broken. 4. As regards the other charge regarding absenteeism on 2 dates when there had been maintenance the Labour Court found that the workman had actually submitted medical certificates to the Management of those dates and even assuming that the medical certificates were not true and the workman had remained absent willfully that fact alone could not form the basis of dismissal. Under such circumstances the workman was found entitled to the relief sought for by him. Learned counsel appearing for the Management has pointed out that the finding that the plumber blocks themselves had not been broken by reference to the fact that log book had not been produced and the shift engineer was present but had not been examined to be perverse by the fact that even the workman had admitted to the charge issued to him that they had been broken but only defined that it was not due to any negligence that could be attributed to him. Even in the cross-examination it had not been suggested anywhere to any of the Management witnesses that the plumber blocks themselves had not been broken. Such a finding rendered by the Rent Controller, I have no hesitation to say was clearly wrong. 5. However, the most crucial issue is whether the nexus should be brought about to the negligence of not aligning the plumber blocks correctly that could have resulted in their breakage. The attempt of the learned counsel for the workman was that the Management had proceeded originally under the assumption that the workman was actually present at that time but had later conceded in evidence that the CWP No.7986 of 1992 4 workman was not present in the night and that he had completed his working hours the previous evening around 5.00 P.M. The issue whether the workman was actually present there at the spot or not has no significance in this case, since it is no body's case that the plumber blocks broke during the time when the workman was operating the crane. The crane operator was a different person and the negligence attributed by the Management to the workman was on the basis of that a fitter alone was Incharge of the crane and he alone should ensure that there was proper aligning of the plumber blocks and the mal-alignment did not result which could have the effect of breaking the blocks. Learned counsel appearing for the Management relied on the evidence of MW-3 S.K. Tripathi-Chief Engineer who gave evidence to the effect “fitter is Incharge of the crane but duty Manager is the over all Incharge. The life of plumber blocks is 3-4 years...... 3 plumber blocks were broken down continuously on the night of 23-24.3.1979 because of the reason of mal-alignment of the crane. The duty of a fitter is to check the alignment daily. The claimant Sunder Lal might not have checked on date 23.3.1979 as a result of which the plumber blocks have been broken.......... Proper alignment is the duty-work of the fitter. He would have not checked the mal-alignment and the breakage had happened due to the negligence of the fitter...........”. Adverting to this fact, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would state that in the face of clear and cogent evidence placing the responsibility only on the fitter to maintain the plumber blocks, the negligence was clearly established. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the workman had a different story to tell. He would argue that the breakage of the plumber blocks did not happen at the same time and the three blocks were broken in a period of about 16 hours. The workman though, was not present at the same place, during that time he was very much available in the factory and CWP No.7986 of 1992 5 even when the first breakage of plumber block had taken place, he ought to have been informed, if the impression was that he was responsible for not making the alignment properly. It was brought out in the evidence of MW-3 himself that three blocks had been broken in a span of about 16 hours and originally the alignment had been done by M/s Prem Engineering Works. To a suggestion whether the workman had not reported that the plumber blocks were defective or weak whether he had reported so to the Chief Engineer or the Managing Director he said, he had not done so. He had also admitted in the cross-examination that claimant himself was on duty in 2 to 5 shift and during duty time and the Shift Chief used to be Incharge of the crane. He also admitted that the Engineer would always be on duty and the plumber blocks had actually been changed in November before the starting of the season. 7. Certain facts stand out. The workman was not present at the time when the breakage had taken place. It did not happen at the same time but over a time extending about 15-16 hours. Even after the first breakage had taken place, the workman had not been informed nor he was asked to re-check the alignment to ensure that there was no recurrence of such an accident. The alignment had been previously done by M/s Prem Engineering Works about 4-5 months earlier. There was duty Manager who was over all Incharge and he should have also known immediately after plumber blocks were broken as to who was responsible. In the chain of evidences that resulted in breakage of plumber blocks unless there was clear evidence that could bring about a nexus of the negligence of any one particular workman it might not be possible to place the entire blame on one person. On the given evidence, the Labour Court found that the nexus had not been established. The enquiry report itself contained no detail for how the charge was found to be proved except the fact that the fitter is responsible for the maintenance for the crane and if an CWP No.7986 of 1992 6 accident had taken place, the whole blame must be attributed only to him. It did not take note of the fact that the plumber blocks themselves were 3-4 years old and the alignment had been previously done by M/s Prem Engineering Works. It was not brought out through evidence of Prem Engineering Works itself whether their work had ensured trouble free performance. This Court will not examine the adequacy of evidence before a Enquiry Officer but if such an evidence was found to be insufficient by the Labour Court, then there is no reason for the High Court to take a view differently and re-apprise the entire evidence before the enquiry officer. The bottom line is that the evidence offered was found to be insufficient to prove the charge and being essentially a matter of inference from evidence, I deem it inappropriate to interfere with the order. The Labour Court's decision both as regards the finding that the guilt of the workman had not been established and the nature of punishment was not justified. I find no reason to interfere. The writ petition filed by the Management is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 22, 2009 archana