p PETiTiONER HJGH GOURT OR CNHATTiSGARH: BiLASPUR WriS Petition fii) No.4076 of 2008. TheSecretary, SamyuktaKhacian i^azdoor Sangh (AFFUC) P;0. Datijrajhara, Distt. •Dufg'(CG); , • . - Versvs RESPONDENT Mansjging Director; Bhifai Steel Piant, Distt. Durgi(CG), (WritPetJtion under Artloie 226Q27J of the Constttution of indsa.) SB: Hon'bte IVIr. Saiish K. Agnihotri, J. Presente Shri R. Mul^iopadhyQy, oouriseiforthepetitioiner ORAL.ORbE^ • ' . .'• ' i ! " (Passed on thjs28tli day ofJuly,2008) By this petition, the petitioner chaiienges the legaiity arid vaiidity of the order 'dated 29-5-2006 (Annexure P/1}, whereby Central Govemm^nt Industria! Tribunai (for short, "CGiT) cum Labour Court, JabaSpur, has answered the reference in favourjofth8managementhoidingthattheac|tionofthemanagemerTl^^ Piant In reiation to their i\4ahamaya"fVHnes in terminating the |services of Shri S.L. Sahu, wsth effect from 14-2-1 990 is ja^fui and justified. : 2) The indlsputabie facts, in nutsheii, are that the petitioner v^s empioyed as Weigh Bridge Gierk In Mahamaya Mines ofBliaspur under theeGntrol pfthe Bhifai Steei Piant, The petltioner wascharge-sheetedon 26-3-1 988 (Annexure P/3) as •under: •: " ':;,•' . • '•. • •'.., ' ".' -••;'..' "".:.'.' .•'.. '• ;.' ••' . :-:' • ,';1':-.:! "That SMri L.L. Balihare, P.No.210141 du.ring the year 1986 whjie working as Mining Mate in DPR: Waga Sedion pf Mahamaya Mine was entrusted with 'the^ Productlon Data-E and maintenance of Vyage Registef wherein^ units of outputs are entereci gangwlse. i ; That the origina! copy of Production Data-E duly signed by Mine Manager was many times carrteci for handing over to Flnance Secticn, Rajhara by ShrlSaiihare personaSiy. ^ 2 - That it is- reveaied thatj the errtries 1n originai copy of Production Data-E for thei month of February 1984 to JuSy, 1 Q84 and Dece!84 were altered by him by oven^TJting/cutting and them making certain ;enl:ries •as weli as entering certain figures against fNil/Biank} e|ntries. That, due to this corrupt ipractice of aitering the ^ntries on hlgher side ion Production Data-E (originai) which fbrms the basis for computer to compute the eamings of various gangs excess paymentwas made to Rece-rated mazdoors. Tnat, by the above aote Shri L.L. Baiihare, P.No.21041 has committed an act of misconduot under the Standing Orders for Mines ofBhjiai Steel Plant. in pursuance of the charges, a departmentai enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry the petitioner was found gyilty of committing an act of misconduct inasmuch as he abetted in making aiterations/tempering by the C.S.E.1, in the Wages Payment Documents of DPR Mazdoor of Mahamaya Mlnes (Annexure P/4). Reference was macl^ to CGtT. CGIT after having considered al! the aspeots came ;to the conduslon asfollows. "in view of the above, the reference is answered in favour of the management and against the workman/Union and it is hereby heid tnat the aotion of the: management af Bhiiai Steei Ptant in retatlon to thelr Mahamaya Mines in terminating the services of Shri S.L Sanu, P.NQ.211057, Welgh Bridge Cierk w.e.f. 14-2-190 js iawfuS; and justified and oonsequentiy the vvorkman is not entitled to any reiief. So far as the cost of reference is conoerned; the parties shail beartneir own costs. issues No. 4 & 5 are declded acoorcijngjy in favour of the management and againstthe wor^man", 3) it is not the case of tne petrtioner that there was any defeot or irreguiarity or iilegality in the enquiry process. Learned counsei appearing for fhe petitioner, submits that the petitioner was not found having cdmmitted any aiteratlon, biri: he had failed to report the superior authorities about mis-conduot committed by one L.L. Baiihare. '^. - 4) Be that as Jt may, the enquiry report has oategorioaSly heid as under: "11. The other deiinquent Shrl S.L Sahu, VVeighbridge ' Cierk of Mahama^a Mine, was vested with the work of wages biii preparation for some gangs since May/April 1984. Shri Sahu also sometirnes used to submit the dccuments to Rajhare Fihance in absence af Shri Barihare. In December 186 yocuments were submstted by hand by Shri LL Balihare, M/Mate, to Shri P. Samuei, 0/8 of Rajhare, Rnance (Ref. i PD-8,i PD-7 & PD-1). 14. (a) Shri S.D. Prasad, PW-4, who was working with Shri L. L. Balihare since fhe ^atter joined Mahamaya Mjnes In the wages section, also confirmed that the concemed handwriting beionged to Shri LL. Baiihare (l PD-6 cross examination ofPVV-4 by P.N.). (b) .Shri S.L. Sahu, CSE-2 also confirmed that these handwritings beEonged to Shri L.L. BaEihare (Ref. j PD-7), '15. Shri .'LL Baiihare, CSE-1, 'agreed to Ithe vlgiiance. oflicer in his written statemert ^tnat these ohanges were made by hlm by/mistak8 (Ref 1 PD-8). l 16. Both/S/Shri LL Ba!ihare and S.L Sahu had - submitted individuai mercy petitions to Mines Manager (Mahamaya Mlnes) requesting tl^e letter to exonerate them from some act of misconduct. Mines Manager (Mahamaya) accepted the petitions and recprded cn these that the misconduct pertalned to the instant case(s). Wniie the signature ofShri LL. Baiihare tailied weii, that of-Stiri S.L Sahu did not taSiy at alE. Both of them subrnitted that they had signed on these documents (Shri Sahu stated to have signed cn anuther petltian) whjte their senses were not under their contrOi (Ref. i PD-9 and 1 PD- 10); ., .. , . ' • . ; .; . . • 5) i have heard iearned counset appearing for the petitioner, perused the pieadings and documents appended thereto. i do not find any inflfmity or iliegality in the enquiry report and conoiusion reached by fhe management In case of dJsdpiinary enquiry and punishment thereof, the scope of jnterferenoe bythis Gourt in exercise ofits power under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of irsdia, i$ iimited. No materiai nas been produced to examine the aileged grievances of non" appreciation of evidence. Further, it is not the case ofthe petitioner that there was irreguiarity or iifegaiity in the enquiry process. it Is well settSed that ifthe empioyer has iost confidence in the empioyee, there is no other option, except to refriove the employee from the empioyment. 6) / Recentiy, In the matter of- U.P- State Road Trarssport Corppratioii. Vs. Viiiod Kuiifiar their Lordships of the Supreme Court obsen/ed as under: "... .the respondent had confin^j his case on!y to the conciustons reaohed by the enquiry ofRcer as we!! as the quantum of punishment.': Therefore, slnce the respondent ' had not chaiienged the correctness, iegality or vaSidifr^ of the Inquir^ condugted, it waa not.open to the Labour Court •• to. go into the 1indings rBoorcfed'by fhe enquiry •ofRcer regarding the misconduct oommitted by the^ respondent. This Court in a number of judgments nas held that the punishment . of removal/djsmlssai is the appropriate punishment for - • an ' emptoyee found guiity of misappropriation of funds; and the courts should be reluotant to reduce the punishment on mispiaced sympathy fbr a workman. . That, there is nothlng •wrong In the empioyer iosing confidence or fasth in sucn an empioyee and awardlng punishment af dismissal. That; in suoh oases, there Is no Diace for generosity or misplaced sympathy on'the .part', of the' judicial .fbrums and interfering with the quantum of punJshment. ...." 7) For tne reasons mentloned hereinabove, no, interference is warranted. This petition is devoid of merit. The petltion is accordingiy dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge T-^N- 1 (2008) 1 SCC 115