C.W.P. No.18900 of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.18900 of 1997 Date of Decision: 12.11.2009 Roshan Lal son of Dhani Ram .....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocate for Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The workman, who challenges the award of the Labour Court was a person, whose services had been terminated following the charge of misconduct of adulterating the milk, which had come in closed containers. The adulteration, according to the management, was noticed on a surprise inspection, which was carried on 04.05.1991 where yet another person by name Hari Singh was there at the milk booth at the bus stand, Ludhiana and it was found by the inspecting staff that the corks had been loosened and even the colour of the milk had been changed. The suspicion was that the milk had been tampered by adding some C.W.P. No.18900 of 1997 -2- other material with sweetener, which amounted to adulteration of milk. When one of the members in the inspecting staff was staying at the booth, the workman had also joined and the workman was confronted about the tampering done with the corks in the bottles and the adulteration which was suspected to have been done, both the workmen had allegedly admitted to their guilt and had given it in writing that they had done it to tide over some loss for which recoveries were being made. Yet another person by name Naib Singh, working at the same booth is reported to come a little later and he had refused to sign in the attendance register the ground that he had applied for leave and he refused to give in writing that he had any role to play. 2. On an enquiry duly constituted, the management had placed evidence to the effect that on chemical examination done, it was found that there had been adulteration and that the bacteriological content in the bottles seized at the depot had been high. Before the Enquiry Officer, the workman denied that he had signed the confession statement and contended that he did not know to write Punjabi and the signature was taken from him by threat and coercion. The workman also sought through an application for production of some records to prove that even the subsequent dispatches in the 8th month of 1991 from the manufacturing plant it was noticed that that the corks had not been properly closed and the entire consignment had been C.W.P. No.18900 of 1997 -3- returned to the manufacturing plant. The attempt of the workman was, therefore, to show that it was a known defect in the manner in which the bottles had been sealed and the inadequacy of the sealing contrivance gave room for the material inside the bottles to be contaminated. The further objection that had been taken before the Enquiry Officer was that there was no proof that the particular bottles, which had been seized had been properly secured for dispatch to the chemical analyst to correlate the finding of adulteration with what were seized from the milk depot. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also draws my attention to the fact that the Enquiry Officer felt inclined to allow the application for production of records and finding that the management was inconvenienced by such a prospect, the Enquiry Officer himself had been changed and the subsequent Enquiry Officer had been prejudiced against the workman. The motive for implicating him in the entire episode, according to the workman, was that he failed to support the management for giving evidence against some superior officers, which the management wanted to pursue and, therefore, he was being framed on trumped up charges. 3. The witnesses had been examined in the presence of the workman and finding of proof of charges had been given in a report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer had specifically reasoned that the workman's contention that he signed C.W.P. No.18900 of 1997 -4- the confession statement by force and coercion could not be true. He also inferred from the fact that the workman had not complained of such force any time earlier than when a charge sheet had been issued against him a month later that his version cannot be true and observed that the so-called force was trotted out by the workman for the first time only in drafting reply. The workman's contention that there had been a change of the Enquiry Officer only to secure a biased report in favour of the management was indeed a last clutch at the straw, for the objection for the constitution of yet another officer was not brought anywhere except in the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel. A change of an Enquiry Officer as a circumstance to show bias is too far-fetched for acceptance. The case cannot be reappraised by this Court as if it were the trial Court or the case is being urged before me in a court of appeal. The extent of judicial review, what is available, is to examine the validity of the report that shall be confined only to violation of the procedure that a law lays down or untenable reasoning incompatible with evidence adduced. If the Enquiry officer had found that the workman had given a statement voluntarily admitting his guilt, it shall not be possible either for the Labour Court or for this Court to state that it could have been obtained only by force. 4. If the conduct of the enquiry could not be punctured as C.W.P. No.18900 of 1997 -5- in violation of rules of natural justice or procedure, the conclusion that it had ultimately come to, cannot be said to be suspect. The Labour Court had, consistent with its reasoning that the enquiry had been fair and proper, could not have traversed beyond the finding of guilt except to re-examine whether the punishment meted out to the workman was proportionate to the gravity of the charge. Adulteration is a serious offence, which impinges on not merely the lack of integrity of the workman, but is a major social crime against health and safety of the consumer public. The decision to dismiss the workman after a duly constituted enquiry cannot be faulted with. 5. Learned counsel for the workman also contends that another person, who was also working in the same booth and who had turned up at the booth after 11 O'clock and who had to share the same degree of guilt was not proceeded with and he had been let off with the stoppage of increments. This, according to the learned counsel, constitutes invidious distinction in the matter of punishment between one workman and another for the same misconduct. He refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sengara Singh and others etc. Vs. The State of Punjab and others AIR 1984 SC 1499, where the Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when 1100 members of the Police Force had been guilty of gross misconduct in indulging in an agitation, the reinstatement to some and dismissal to some constituted grave C.W.P. No.18900 of 1997 -6- discrimination. The Hon'ble Bench reasoned if the indiscipline of a large number of personnel could be condoned or overlooked and criminal cases could also be withdrawn, it was inconceivable that some alone must be discriminated and visited with punishments of dismissal from services. The Court held that the conduct of the management smacked of arbitrariness and fell foul of Article 14 of the Constitution. One aspect cannot be forgotten that there could be never an equality in illegality or a plea in parity for persons in equal guilt. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the misconduct of a large body of policemen was not perhaps in the same league as were found in a case where a workman had been found to have adulterated a food item and had also given a statement in writing admitting to such guilt. The statement found the bedrock of finding of guilt, which yet another workman had not done. The other workman Naib Singh was not present at the same time when the inspecting staff had come and when he did come, he was merely applying for leave. These are ways of life that every offender of law does not always get caught. The offences are far too many but the persons that get trapped are not in the same numbers. If the argument could be stretched, it should be possible for every offender of corruption offence to say that there are so many persons who are guilty of corruption and since all are not caught, even the person who was rightly framed should be freed. The case of Hon'ble C.W.P. No.18900 of 1997 -7- Supreme Court must be rested on its own facts and it may not be applied to an illogical extension that since one workman had been let off with a lesser punishment, yet another person must be treated similarly. I reject such a contention on behalf of the workman and I find that there is no scope for interference in the writ petition. 6. The writ petition is, under the circumstances, dismissed. There shall be however no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 12, 2009 Pankaj*