IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.1953/2007 Reserved on: 6.5.2008 Decided on: 16.5.2008 Roop Lal. …Petitioner. Versus The Managing Director General Industries Corporation and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. no. For the petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For respondent No.1 : Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. A challenge has been laid by the petitioner to the award dated 16.3.2007 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh in case I.D. No.621/2k5. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman for convenience sake) was appointed as a semi-skilled workman with 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? no. 2 the respondent-corporation (hereinafter referred to as the management for the brevity sake). He was placed under suspension on 5th November, 1996. He was chargesheeted vide memorandum dated 3.12.1996. He filed reply to the charge-sheet whereby the allegations made in the charge-sheet were denied. The Disciplinary Authority appointed an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer. He appointed Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj, Joint Secretary of All India Trade Union Congress as his Defence Assistant. The management examined its witnesses on 14.6.1997/15.6.1997. The workman examined himself and 20 other witnesses before the Inquiry Officer on 15.6.1997 and 7.7.1997. The Inquiry Officer submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority supplied the copy of the inquiry report to the workman to enable him to make a representation. He made a representation against the inquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority vide office order dated 31.3.1998 terminated the services of the workman with immediate effect. The workman assailed his termination under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After the failure of the conciliation proceedings, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India referred the matter for adjudication to respondent No.2-Tribunal. In sequel to the reference made by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, the workman filed a detailed statement of claim before respondent No.2. The management filed reply to the statement of claim. The workman also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the management on 18th March, 2002. Respondent No.2 3 passed the award against the workman on 16.3.2007. The workman has assailed this award Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner had strenuously argued that the award dated 16.3.2007 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He also contended that the Labour Court has failed to take into consideration that the domestic inquiry initiated and completed which has led to the termination of the petitioner on 31.3.1998 was not conducted in accordance with law. He further contended that punishment of termination imposed upon his client is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and the same should be reduced. Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate appearing on behalf of the management had supported the award dated 16.3.2007. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the workman. The workman was served with a charge-sheet to which he had filed a detailed reply. The Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. The workman had appointed his own Defence Assistant. The management had produced oral as well as documentary evidence to substantiate the charges against the workman. The workman during the course of domestic inquiry in addition to himself had examined 20 other witnesses. The Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority supplied the copy of the inquiry report to the workman. The 4 workman filed a reply to the inquiry report. The penalty of termination was imposed upon the workman on 31.3.1998. The thrust of the charge-sheet against the petitioner was that he while working with the management was engaged in side- business. He had been inciting the workman which led the industrial unrest. He did not join his duties at his place of posting after his headquarters was shifted. The workman had contended before the Labour Court that the management had failed to produce any evidence to show that the vehicles were owned by him and he had incited the workmen against the management. The management should have fixed his wages before directing him to join duties at Shimla. He also contended before the Labour Court that the management was biased against him and the Presenting Officer as well as the Inquiry Officer were the employees of the management. He also contended that the necessary documents were not supplied to him. The management had opposed the claim of the workman before the Labour Court. It was projected by the management before the Labour Court that the workman ran his own business and he incited the workmen. The management had justified the penalty of termination inflicted upon he workman after the conclusion of the domestic inquiry against him. The workman had appeared before the Labour Court as a witness and has also filed his affidavit W-1. It is evident from the award of the Labour Court that the workman had admitted that he was charge-sheeted. The management had produced the witnesses and had led the documentary evidence. He had admitted that he received the copies of 5 the memorandum dated 3.12.1996, 30.5.1996, 7.6.1996 and 12.10.1996. He also admitted that he had received the copies of the letters as mentioned in the award. The management had produced Sh. M.S. Pathania and Sh. Ram Saroop Bhardwaj as its witnesses. Mr. M.S. Pathania through his affidavit Ex.M-1 exhibited documents Ex. M-2 to M-14. Mr. Ram Saroop Bhardwaj had proved the documents Ex.M-16 to M-22. It is evident from the award that a domestic inquiry has been conducted against the workman in accordance with law. He was put under suspension and thereafter a charge sheet was issued to him. He had filed a detailed reply to the charge-sheet. The management produced its own oral as well as documentary evidence. The workman was granted ample opportunity to lead his evidence. He had produced as many as 20 witnesses and has also examined himself. The Inquiry Officer on the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties had come to a just conclusion that the charges levelled against the workman were duly proved. The workman cannot find fault with the appointment of the Inquiry Officer drawn from the management. There is no bar that the management cannot appoint its own Officer as an Inquiry Officer. Similarly, the contention raised by Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate that the Presenting Officer was also the employee of the management is repelled. The workman had been given ample opportunity to prove his innocence. He has been supplied with the list of documents as asked by him from time to time. He had been given the opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses of the management. The plea raised by the workman that he had not been paid any subsistence allowance was raised only during the course of arguments and has rightly been repelled by the 6 Labour Court. The manage ment had proved that the workman was engaged in side-business by owning two tippers. The management had proved that the registration of the tippers was in his name. The workman cannot be permitted to indulge in side-business to harm the interests of the management. The employer was also involved in the mining and the machinery owned by the workman was also being used for the mining process. The workman cannot be permitted to work against the interests of the management. Similarly, the management had proved that the workman had been inciting other co-workmen to resort to strikes. There is a detailed procedure for redressing the grievances of the workman. The same procedure is required to be followed. It is necessary for the workman to maintain the industrial peace for production. The conduct of the workman to own two vehicles and to incite the workmen amounted to serious misconduct. Similarly, he was bound to join his duties at new place of posting when he was directed to report at Shimla. The workman has not given any cogent reason why he has not reported for duties at Shimla. If he has not been paid any wages, he should have taken up the matter with the management instead of flouting the orders passed by the management. In view of the circumstances mentioned herein above, the penalty of termination imposed on the workman is not disproportionate to the misconduct. Consequently, it is held that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are in accordance with law and need not be interfered with by this Court. The Labour Court while giving its findings has dealt with all the issues raised by the workman minutely. The Labour Court as warranted under law has discussed oral as well as documentary evidence led by the 7 parties. A case law has been discussed and applied on the facts placed before the Labour Court. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Rajiv Sharma), Judge May 16, 2008 *Awasthi*