1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- (1) SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 155 of 2009 MEWAR DISTILLERIES AND CHEMICALS WORKS V/S LABOUR COURT,BHILWARA & ANR. (2) SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 156 of 2009 MEWAR DISTILLERIES AND CHEMICALS WORKS, V/S LABOUR COURT,BHILWARA & ANR. Mr. MANISH SHISHODIA, for the appellant Mr. RS CHOUDHARY, for the respondent No.2 Date of Order : 20.2.2009 HON'BLE SHRI AM KAPADIA,J. HON'BLE SHRI SANGEET LODHA,J. ORDER ----- BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE MR. A.M. KAPADIA, J.) 1.Challenge in these two special appeals is to the correctness of common order dated 21.10.2008, rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.3752 of 2006 and 2751 of 2008, by the learned Single of this Court, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellant have been dismissed and thereby Award dated 30.09.2005 (Annex.7 to the writ petition) rendered by Labour Court holding that the termination of the services of the respondent workman w.e.f. 25.05.2002 is neither proper nor valid and 2 directing the appellant for reinstatement of the workman with all benefits as well as holding the respondent workman entitled for wages w.e.f. 01.06.2001 to 11.01.2002 have been affirmed. 2.Appellant filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3752 of 2006, inter-alia stating that on receiving a reference from State Government under Sec.10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, under Notification No.1615 of 2002 dated 19.04.2003, the Labour Court adjudicated the matter and answered the reference by Award dated 30.09.2005 holding that termination of the services of the respondent workman w.e.f. 25.05.2002 was not proper and valid and as such directed for reinstatement of respondent workman with all benefits, which was challenged by the appellant in the writ petition. 3.In the other writ petition filed by the appellant being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3751 of 2006, challenge was made to the order passed by Labour Court in proceedings under Sec.33C (2) directing the appellant to pay back wages to the respondent workman from 01.06.2001 to 11.01.2002. 4.We have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the 3 impugned order and the judgments cited at the Bar. 5.In a domestic enquiry, allegations against the respondent workman, inter-alia, were that he went to house of co- employee Udai Singh, offered Prasad of Jalebi to Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar and misbehaved with her. In that enquiry, respondent workman was found guilty, therefore, he was removed from service and against that order, he raised the industrial dispute. 6. The Labour Court, on re-appreication and reappriasal of evidence produced before it, found that there was no allegation against the respondent workman that due to offering Prasad Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar did not feel well and she remained sleeping on the relevant date. The said aspect has not been stated in the statement of Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar, therefore, according to Labour Court, offering Prasad did not tantamount to misbehaviour with lady, more particularly when Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar in her statement has not stated that she was misbehaved by the respondent workman. Besides this, it was found by the Labour Court that Udai Singh, the husband of Bhanwar Kanwar was on duty at the relevant time and he has stated that when he went to his house after performing his duties, one Chattar Ram informed him that respondent workman had come to his house and it was only on the next date that he asked his wife and she informed him that 4 respondent had come to house and gave Prasad of Mataji and thereafter she felt giddiness. Labour Court also noticed that enquiry officer has not appreciated the material placed before him properly and that the enquiry report was a cryptic one so also the evidence produced before the enquiry officer had not been discussed by the Enquiry Officer in his report, therefore, Labour Court came to the conclusion that it is not established that respondent workman misbehaved with Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar, therefore, Labour Court passed the order of reinstatement of the workman as well as of backwages. 7.In the entire breadth and length of the evidence produced before the enquiry officer, we have also not noticed that the respondent workman misbehaved with Bhanwar Kanwar, therefore, the finding arrived at by the enquiry officer was perverse and in that view of the matter, the Labour Court on re-appreciation of evidence correctly answered the reference in favour of respondent workman by directing the appellant to reinstate the workman with backwages. 8. According to learned counsel for the appellant, Labour Court ought not to have interfered in the finding of the enquiry officer as it is based on sound appreciation of evidence. According to him, even if two views are possible, in that case also the Labour Court ought not have substituted its finding by reversing the finding 5 recorded by the enquiry officer. In support of this contention, he relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Employers Management West Bakaro Colliery of TISCO Ltd. Vs. Concerned Workman, Ram Pravesh Singh (Civil Appeal No.892 of 2008, arising out of SLP © No.13281 of 2006, decided on 01.02.2008). In the said case, Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that where two views are possible on the evidence on record, then the Industrial Tribunal should be very slow in coming to a conclusion other than the one arrived at by the domestic Tribunal by substituting its opinion in place of opinion of the domestic Tribunal. 9.According to us, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case is not applicable to the facts of the instant case because in the instant case even two views are not permissible. A perusal of the Award passed by Labour Court reveals that on re-appreciation of evidence, the Labour Court found that there is no material on record to come to the conclusion that the respondent workman misbehaved with Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar. Even Bhanwar Kanwar has not stated anything in her statement. Similarly, Udai Singh, her husband has also not stated anything about respondent workman misbehaving with his wife. He came to know about visiting respondent workman to his house and giving Prasad to his wife only next day. Besides this, the finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiry 6 Officer is cryptic and is passed without any cogent or convincing material on record. Therefore, according to us, the Labour Court has rightly passed the award in favour of the respondent workman. 10.In aforesaid view of the matter, according to us, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing both the writ petitions filed by appellant and confirming the award made in favour of respondent workman. 11.We find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding arrived at by the Labour Court which has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge as no other view is possible on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12.Seen in the above context, both these special appeals lack merit, deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. ( SANGEET LODHA ),J. ( AM KAPADIA ),J. JPA