HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A. No. 741 of 2003 DATED: 07.09.2011 Between: K. Laxmi Narayana .. Appellant A N D 1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur 2. Pfizer Ltd., Mumbai .. Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 18.03.2003 passed in W.P. No. 1989 of 2000 whereby the learned Single Judge held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the 2nd respondent-management against the appellant is proper, and set aside the order dated 08.12.1999 passed in I.D. No. 101 of 1995 with a direction to the Labour Court to adjudicate upon I.D. on merits, expeditiously. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-workman filed a police complaint against the District Manager of the 2nd respondent-management on the allegation that the 2nd respondent compelled him to sign on resignation letter by threat and coercion, and when he refused, the District Manager manhandled him. Subsequently, charges were framed against the appellant and domestic enquiry was conducted by the 2nd respondent, which according to the appellant, is not fair and proper, and resulted in the termination of his services by an order dated 17.02.1995. Challenging the validity of the domestic enquiry, the appellant-workman raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No. 101 of 1995, and the Labour Court, Guntur, by order dated 08.12.1999, allowed the I.D. holding that the 2nd respondent-management has failed to furnish the documents to the appellant, as such, the domestic enquiry is not fair and proper, and the same is vitiated. Then, the 2nd respondent-management filed a writ petition in W.P. No.1989 of 2000 seeking to quash the order of the Labour Court, and this Court, by order dated 18.03.2003, while setting aside the order of the Labour Court, directed the Presiding Officer to adjudicate upon the I.D. on merits, within the stipulated time. Assailing the order dated 18.03.2003, the appellant-workman filed the present Writ Appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant-workman has contended that the Labour Court was justified in holding that the domestic enquiry conducted by the 2nd respondent-management is vitiated because non-furnishing of documents i.e. Exs.M14 to M22 to the appellant in spite of his attendance at the enquiry on 15.09.1994 caused prejudice to him, and it certainly amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the workman did not suffer prejudice on account of non-furnishing of the documents, as such, the order under appeal is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-management has contended that the charges are so grave and even though the appellant attended the domestic enquiry in the first session on 15.09.1994, but in the next session which was held on the afternoon of 06.10.1994 during which Exs.M14 and M22 were marked, he was not present, and hence, the inquiry was declared ex parte, and inquiry proceedings commenced, and the learned Judge rightly considered this matter and found that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper, and the same cannot be interfered with. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-management and perused the material placed on record. To buttress his strenuous contentions, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-management has relied upon a judgment reported in Municipal Council, Khurai and Another v. Kamal Kumar and Another wherein the Apex Court held to the following effect: “In the present case, the High Court has chosen to exercise discretion in favour of the respondents and it would not be right for us to interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless we are satisfied that the action of the High Court was arbitrary or unreasonable.” He has further relied upon the judgment reported in Venkateswaran v. Wadhwani wherein the Apex Court observed thus: “Where the granting of relief was at the discretion of the High Court, the Supreme Court would not interfere unless the discretion was exercised by the High Court improperly or arbitrarily even though the Supreme Court might have exercised the discretion in a different way if the application for writ had been present to the Supreme Court in the first instance.” Yet another decision is relied upon by him in Santosh v. Mool Singh wherein it is held thus: Though no hard and fast rules can be laid down in matters relating to the exercise of a discretion, the Supreme Court will interfere where the discretion is exercised arbitrarily or is based on a misunderstanding of the principles that govern its exercise. The undisputed facts are that the 2nd respondent-management issued charge sheet dated 04.04.1994 to the workman listing out three principal species of charges, the workman submitted his explanation dated 23.04.1994 to the charges, and the 2nd respondent-management conducted domestic inquiry and based on the inquiry officer’s report, initiated disciplinary proceedings culminating the termination of services of the appellant. From a careful perusal of the material placed on record, it is manifest that the documents i.e. Exs.M1 to M13 were marked at the session of the inquiry proceedings held on 15.09.1994 whereat the appellant was present. In the next session held on the afternoon of 06.10.1994, Exs.M14 to M22 which were admittedly sought to be relied on by the appellant in the domestic enquiry, were marked, but the workman failed to turn up, and the 2nd respondent-management, having waited till 4.30 p.m. declared the inquiry ex parte, and the inquiry proceedings commenced. Substantially, the documents, non-furnishing of which is the complaint of the workman, are his own documents submitted to the management either as daily reports or letters addressed to the management. Even in respect of these documents, the appellant did not ever whisper a complaint as to having been disabled in submitting his explanation to the charges framed against him. In the context of an assurance given by the Inquiry Officer himself that every document marked at the inquiry would be furnished to the workman, the workman should have, in fairness, participated in the inquiry, obtained copies of the documents and sought time to lead his defence including by way of cross-examination of the management witness. Having failed to turn up in the afternoon of 06.10.1994, the workman cannot complain that an ex parte inquiry was held and that the documents marked through the management witness at such ex parte inquiry were not furnished to him. The conduct of the workman appears to be an attempt to irrational employment of the technicalities of procedural law on a misconception of the inherited legal process. Insofar as the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the act of non-furnishing of documents amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, is concerned, it needs to be enumerated that it is well settled principle that mere assertion of violation of principles of natural justice would not result in invalidation of an administrative or quasi judicial proceeding including disciplinary proceedings. In order to succeed on the basis of a complaint of violation of the principles of natural justice, it is incumbent upon the person making the assertion to show in addition that some material prejudice was suffered on account of such asserted violation of principles of natural justice. This Principle is reiterated by the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar and in State Bank of Patiala and others v. S.K. Sharma. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge conspicuously held that the explanation dated 23.04.1994 to the charge-sheet, submitted by the appellant discloses that the workman had no distress nor suffered any prejudice in submitting his explanation to the charges seriatim and in detail insofar as his explanation to the charges was dependent upon any of the documents led at the domestic inquiry. Further, it is to be noticed that the Labour Court simply held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the 2nd respondent-management is not fair and proper on the ground that the 2nd respondent has not furnished the documents to the appellant in spite of the request made by him. From the above analysis and in the light of the well settled principle, the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge to the view expressed by the Labour Court on the charges framed against the appellant, in our considered opinion, is neither arbitrary nor improper nor would mean the vice of violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant are not sustainable. For the foregoing reasons, we find no infirmity legal or otherwise in the impugned order, and the Writ Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 07.09.2011 ________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Bcj