IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16521 of 1991 Date of decision: 24 .07.2009 Subash Chander Grover, Ex-Jr. Clerk in the office of M/s Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd., Chandigarh ...Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh ...Respondents and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. --- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J. (Oral) C.M.No.12000 of 2009 The application to restore the appeal which is previously dismissed for default. The respondent has not been appearing and there cannot be any objection. Petition is allowed and the case is directed to be heard today itself. Civil Writ Petition No.16521 of 1991 1. The challenge to the award of the Labour Court, finding the charge of insubordination and assault on superior officer to have been established, is made by the workman on the ground that it was a fabricated case wrought out of previous enmity. To rebut the charge Civil Writ Petition No.16521 of 1991 - 2 - by the management that the workman had assaulted the Area Sales Officer Shri V.K.Gupta on 19.06.1981, the workman wanted to contend and explain that there had been series of instances from 10.06.1981 when the Area Sales Manager Shri Mohinder Singh and Shri V.K. Gupta, Sales Officer, had harboured a grudge against him because he did not want to be a party in their wrong doings of pilferage of some paints and downgrading some categories of paints to lower class. According to the workman, the superior officers wanted to jettison him from service and they were looking for excuses. 2. For the alleged charge of physical assault on the Sales Officer and for insubordination, an Enquiry Officer appointed, report of guilt obtained and an order of termination made. The order was subject of dispute that culminated in reference to the Labour Court. 3. The Labour Court found on a preliminary enquiry that the Enquiry Officer was not competent to conduct the enquiry and the proceedings had been vitiated with the vice of the disciplinary authority in taking a decision to clamp an enquiry even before waiting to consider the objections given by the workman. The Labour Court, therefore, after passing an order that the enquiry had been vitiated, directed the management to let in evidence about the proof of the charges. Before the Labour Court, the Sales Officer V.K.Gupta had narrated the incident about the fact that when he reprimanded the workman against his prying on some files during the recess hours, the workman reacted angrily with epithets and when he (V.K.Gupta) put his hands to his (workman's) shoulders to pacify him, the workman went into rage and gave a punch Civil Writ Petition No.16521 of 1991 - 3 - blow on the forehead with the paper puncher and also started abusing him. According to the witnesses, he had also been injured and medically treated at hospital. A case had also been registered at the police station. This statement of the officer was supported by Shri K.N.Malhotra, who gave evidence that he was an eye-witness to the incident and he explained the details that supported Shri Gupta's statement. The Labour Court had found that the witnesses had been cross-examined at length by the counsel for the workman with reference to the statements made in the Court and also with reference to the statements which they had made during the course of domestic enquiry. 4. The Labour Court also examined the defence version put forward by the workman that the workman had been working even during lunch hours under the instructions of Shri Mohinder Singh, the Incharge Officer and if he had been looking into his own files, there was hardly anything suspicious about his conduct and the incident happened only when Shri V.P.Sharma put his hands on the workman's shoulders and when the workman was trying to wriggle himself from his hold and clutches of Mr. Gupta, the chain of his wrist watch scratched against the forehead of Shri Gupta and a minor abrasion had been caused to him. The Labour Court had noted that the very nature of evidence ill-fitted with the nature of injury that had been landed on Shri Gupta. The details of injuries had been brought out in the award itself, “A perusal of the medico legal report shows that the Doctor found reddish contusion 2 cm x 1 ½ cm on the left side of the forehead, 2 cm above the right eyebrow. There was a swelling on this part and there was also an abrasion 1 cm x Civil Writ Petition No.16521 of 1991 - 4 - 0.2 cm on the left side over the contusion.” The Labour Court reasoned that a mere rubbing of a chain of the wrist watch might cause a simple abrasion but not swelling and the injury could have been caused only in the manner spoken to by the witnesses. The Labour Court specifically gave a finding that the medical evidence called the lie of the defence of the workman. The Labour Court also found that the workman himself did not produce any evidence nor had he examined Mohinder Singh. The Labour Court found the evidence of the two management witnesses to be worthy of acceptance and found the charges made against the workman to have been established. The Labour Court held that the workman was guilty of willful subordination and disobedience of the orders of his superior officers. The Labour Court concluded by observing that the evidence was sufficient to inspire confidence of the Court and to an act that involved assault on superior officers, the punishment of dismissal from service was justified. 5. The reasoning of the Labour Court is cogent and it has taken note of every facet of the case that would require to be examined. The award is unassailable and there is no scope for interference in the matter of pure appreciation of evidence that has resulted in the proof of guilt. The writ petition is without merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 24.07.2009 sanjeev