WP/7/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7 OF 2011 DYNA-K Automotive Stampings Pvt. Ltd., Pune ... Petitioner V/s. K.P. Rameshan ... Respondent Mr. Neel Helekar i/b. Haresh Mehta & Co. for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 17 TH JANUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. This Writ Petition has been preferred against the Award Part I passed by the Labour Court, Pune on 14th October, 2009 in Reference (IDA) No.120 of 2001. By this Award, the Labour Court has held that the enquiry conducted against the respondent-workman was not fair and proper in as much as the enquiry report was not furnished to him before he was dismissed from the service. 2. Mr. Helekar, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, points out that the respondent has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, reported in 1991 I CLR 61 WP/7/2011 2 SC, in order to butteress his contention that the enquiry was vitiated because the report of the enquiry officer was not furnished to him before the dismissal order was passed against him. The learned Advocate points out that the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 31, and in the case of Sarva Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank vs. Manoj Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 556, has observed that prejudice must be shown by the workman if he contends that the enquiry is vitiated because the enquiry officer’s report was not furnished to him prior to the issuance of the dismissal order. He also relies on my judgment in the case of Hanumant Pandurang Indalkar vs. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., Pune & Anr., reported in 2006 I CLR 448. 3. In the present case, the respondent-workman has consistently from the date he was terminated from the service brought to the notice of the petitioner- employer that he has been prejudiced by not furnishing the report of the enquiry officer before the order of dismissal was passed against him. He has, in fact, called upon the petitioner-Company to withdraw the dismissal order and to permit him to comment upon the enquiry officer’s report before passing a fresh dismissal order. However, this procedure was not acceptable to the petitioner-Company. In his statement of claim also the respondent-workman has categorically stated that he was prejudiced by the failure to furnish the report of the enquiry officer. The WP/7/2011 3 manner in which he was prejudiced has also been mentioned in the statement of claim. 4. In the case of Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. (supra), the Supreme Court has held that failure to supply the report of the enquiry officer to the delinquent employee would not automatically result in quashing or setting aside of the dismissal order or the order being declared null and void. The delinquent employee must be able to prove that non supply of the report has caused prejudice and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. In the case of Sarva Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank (supra), it has been observed that the workman did not protest about being handicapped by the non supply of the enquiry report when he was given personal hearings by the Chairman of the Bank with regard to the proposed punishment. 5. In my opinion, these judgments do not apply to the facts in the present case and are therefore distinguishable. The workman here has pleaded and proved, as held by the Labour Court, that he was prejudiced by the non supply of the enquiry officer’s report. He has protested immediately after the dismissal order was passed and in these circumstances, in my view, the submission of Mr. Helekar is not acceptable. Furthermore, in the case of Hanumant Pandurang Indalkar (supra), it has been observed that the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Direction, WP/7/2011 4 ECIL vs. B. Karunakar, reported in 1993 II CLR 1129, has held that the workman must establish the prejudice caused to him by not being furnished with the enquiry report. In that case, the workman was, in fact, furnished with the report approximately one year before the dismissal order was passed against him. 6. The Labour Court has not committed any error by passing Award Part I and declaring that the enquiry held against the respondent was not fair and proper. 7. The Writ Petition is rejected.