Civil Revision No.1710 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1710 of 2005 Date of decision:09.02.2010. M/s Nestle India Limited ...Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. P.K.Mutneja, Advocate, and Mr. B.B.Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The services of the respondent – workman were terminated by the petitioner – management following a domestic inquiry which held that the charges against the former were proved. On a plea by the workman, the Competent Authority referred the matter to the Labour Court, Bathinda in terms of the provisions of Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The Labour Court recorded a finding that though the Punjab Industrial Tribunal had granted approval to the termination of the respondent – workman, vide order dated 06.12.1993 (Ex.MW2/3), there was evidence that the inquiry had not been fairly held. In terms of an order dated 23.09.1998 by the predecessor of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, it was ordered that the matter shall stand adjourned for recording the evidence on behalf of the management to prove the Civil Revision No.1710 of 2005 -2- charge against the workman. In that case, it was noticed that the then Presiding Officer, Labour Court, had passed an order dated 23.09.1998 to the effect that if issue No.1 was held against the management, it (management) shall be given an opportunity to prove the charges against the workman in the Court itself as “it had at its earliest opportunity made a request to prove the charges against the workman in the Court”. That factual state was reiterated by the then Presiding Officer in the course of the order dated 21.12.2001. It was in the light thereof that the authorized representative of the workman had also made a statement on 28.08.2002 to the effect that “the management could be allowed to lead evidence only after the enquiry is held to be vitiated in this case”. Mr. P.K. Mutneja, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner – management, argued that the workman having been represented by a duly qualified legal practitioner and the proceedings having been recorded in Punjabi language on his own request, the workman cannot be heard to have any grievance with the validity thereof, particularly when he had also conceded that the proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer bear his signatures and that of his authorized representative, on all the pages thereof. Though the learned counsel is correct on facts indicated by him, he is not on a firmer footing in arguing that the inquiry is not vitiated. The following observations shall support this view of mine: - It is in the evidence that the Enquiry Officer was not conversant with Punjabi script. It is common ground that the inquiry proceedings in toto had been recorded in Punjabi language. The Enquiry Officer, who stepped in the witness box as MW1, had conceded that he could neither read nor understand Punjabi script and that he had also not Civil Revision No.1710 of 2005 -3- given any dictation in the course of the inquiry proceedings in Punjabi. These facts are noticed in the order under challenge in para 15 thereof. Those facts are extracted hereunder: - “15. The learned representative of workman has further submitted that the enquiry held by the respondents in this case could not be treated to be fair and proper from another angle also because the enquiry officer was not conversant with the Punjabi script. Admittedly in this case, the entire enquiry proceedings have been recorded in Punjabi. The enquiry officer Sh. Rajan Singhal as MW1 in his cross- examination has admitted that he could neither read nor understand the Punjabi script nor he had given any dictation to the scribe in Punjabi, during the enquiry proceedings. Faced with the predicament aforementioned, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner – management argued that the workman having conceded that all the pages of the inquiry proceedings had been signed by him and his authorized representative ( a duly qualified legal practitioner), he could not be heard to have a grievance qua the validity of the inquiry proceedings aforementioned. In continuity of that grievance, the learned counsel also argued that the respondent – workman never ever made a grievance of the above facts in the course of the claim statement. I find the plea raised to be completely devoid of merit. The validity of the inquiry proceedings was very much challenged in the course of the claim statement. A workman would not be expected to detail the various items of challenge therein. In any case, this Court has to satisfy itself that no prejudice had indeed been caused to the workman Civil Revision No.1710 of 2005 -4- on account of the fact that the Enquiry Officer was not familiar with Punjabi language. As the Enquiry Officer was not familiar with Punjabi language, it is apparent that he could not have dictated evidence. In fact, he conceded that he did not give any dictation (in Punjabi language) in the course of the inquiry proceedings. In that view of things, it is further apparent that the evidence was not recorded under the dictation of the Enquiry Officer. It is only an Enquiry Officer familiar with Punjabi language who could relate the arguments raised to the material obtaining on the file. It is just not understandable why could the petitioner – management not get hold of an officer who had familiarity with Punjabi language. If, on one hand, the Courts would like to ensure that the findings recorded by the Domestic Tribunal are not lightly interfered with, it is equally the responsibility of the Courts to ensure that there is proof available on the record that the inquiry proceedings had been conducted in a fair manner. There can, thus, be no escape from the conclusion that there is no force in the challenge on behalf of the petitioner – management to the validity of the impugned order dated 23.02.2005 granted by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda. It is further apparent from a perusal of the order dated 21.03.2009 passed by a Coordinate Bench (Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.) of this Court that the Labour Court had been directed thereby “to expedite the proceedings and decide the reference preferably within one year”. That order was granted by the Bench while vacating the interim orders dated 24.03.2005 and 20.08.2007 (passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court which dealt with this matter from time to time) directing a stay qua the proceedings pending before the Labour Court. In that view of things, the period of one year is about to over. Lot of headway must have Civil Revision No.1710 of 2005 -5- been made by the Labour Court, Bathinda in the meantime to dispose of the reference. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda shall ensure that the order dated 21.03.2009 is meticulously complied with. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. February 09, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE