WP/3960/1998 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3960 OF 1998 Ratnakar Atmaram Salvi .. Petitioner V/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd., Pune .. Respondent Mr. V.H. Shekdar for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P. Cama with Mr. K.S. Bapat with Mr. Anupam Surve i/b. Haresh Mehta & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM :SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. RESERVED ON :5 TH AUGUST, 2010. PRONOUNCED ON:12 TH AUGUST, 2010. JUDGMENT: 1. The Petitioner has challenged the Awards Part I and II dated 7th October, 1997, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Pune in Reference (IDA) No.472 of 1997. The Labour Court has held that the enquiry conducted against the Petitioner was fair, legal and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In Award Part II, the Labour Court has found that the misconduct WP/3960/1998 : 2 : alleged against the Petitioner has been proved and that the punishment of dismissal was justified. 2. The facts leading to this Writ Petition are as follows : . The Petitioner was employed with the Respondent-Company. On 14th March, 1989, there was a quarrel between two workmen near the Training Division Building, which led to a heated exchange of words between them. On the next day, according to the Respondent-Company, the Petitioner along with other workmen forced the employees of Company to alight from the buses, two wheelers or bicycles, which they used as a mode of transport, when they arrived near the factory gates. Fisticuffs were exchanged between the workmen and in general the situation at the factory gate was violent. On 5th April, 1989, a charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner under the Model Standing Orders 24(k), 24(b) and 24(1). The allegations levelled against the Petitioner were, inter alia, that the WP/3960/1998 : 3 : Petitioner had forced the employees to descend from their vehicles at the factory gates; that he had exhorted the workmen to strike work in order to retaliate against the action of the Respondent- Company in suspending one worker pending an enquiry; that the Petitioner had threatened the workers with assault. As a consequences, several workers abstained from work for the entire day. When some of the workers disregarded the threats of the Petitioner and other striking workmen, he had instigated the striking workers to assault them. The allegation is that he assaulted several workers with fist blows, kicks and by pelting stones at them. Several workers sustained bleeding and blunt injuries. The further allegation against the Petitioner is that at 8:25 a.m. on 15th March, 1989, he and two of his co-workers stopped a bus in front of the main security gate of the factory and shouted loudly that all workers should get off the bus. It is alleged that when one workman Shri. R.D. Tilak and other commuters were alighting from the bus, the Petitioner and the two other workmen WP/3960/1998 : 4 : pulled him down and punched him on his head, eyes and face and kicked him repeatedly. As a result, Shri. Tilak sustained a lacerated wound near his eyes and blunt injuries on his chest. The Respondent-Company, therefore, alleged that the Petitioner had indulged in acts of misconduct under the Model Standing Orders 24(k) “riotous disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the establishment”, 24(b) “going on an illegal strike or abetting, inciting, instigating or acting in furtherance thereof” and 24(1) “commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment”. 3. An enquiry was held against the Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report, finding the Petitioner guilty of the acts of misconduct alleged against him. On the basis of the enquiry report, which was accepted by the Respondent-Company, the Petitioner was dismissed from service on 19th April, 1991. WP/3960/1998 : 5 : 4. The Petitioner raised an industrial dispute for his reinstatement in the Company with continuity of service and full back-wages. The dispute was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court in 1991. The Advocate appearing for the workman filed a pursis contending that the enquiry held against him was fair, legal and proper. The Labour Court passed an order accordingly accepting the statement. The Labour Court then considered whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse. On perusal of the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer, the Labour Court has found that the Petitioner had assaulted Shri. Tilak brutally. The Labour Court also considered the fact that Shri. Tilak was stripped naked and had to take shelter in a slum nearby. The slum dwellers gave him clothes after which he lodged a complaint with the Police. He was treated in the Sasoon Hospital for the injuries sustained by him in the riot. The Labour Court, therefore, held that the Respondent-Company had established the misconduct committed by the Petitioner. The WP/3960/1998 : 6 : Labour Court then considered whether the punishment imposed on the Petitioner was justified. It observed that the inhuman manner in which Shri. Tilak was assaulted had left an indelible scar on him psychologically, which led to his death soon thereafter. In these circumstances, the Labour Court held that the punishment of dismissal was appropriate. 5. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner attempted to submit that the enquiry held against the Petitioner was not fair and proper as the Enquiry Officer had given him no opportunity to cross-examine Shri. Tilak. However while admitting the Writ Petition, rule has been issued by this Court only in respect of the Award Part II. Therefore, the challenge to the procedure adopted at the enquiry and the findings of the Labour Court that the enquiry was fair and proper cannot be entertained at this stage. WP/3960/1998 : 7 : 6. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner then submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse and that the Labour Court ought to have therefore set aside those findings. He submits that the evidence of Shri. Tilak has not been corroborated by any other workman, who was assaulted, despite the fact that according to the Respondent-Company there were several such workmen. It was further submitted that the police complaint allegedly lodged by Shri. Tilak was not a part of the record. The learned Advocate submitted that the Doctor attending to Shri. Tilak at Sasoon Hospital was not examined at the enquiry and instead only the Medical Officer of the Respondent-Company has deposed. The learned Advocate then pointed out that despite the police bandobast at the factory gate where about 300 to 400 policemen were standing vigil, not one of them was examined to prove that such an incident had occured. The learned Advocate urged that the evidence on record failed to prove that Shri. Tilak was assaulted by the Petitioner. He pointed out that the probability of the assault WP/3960/1998 : 8 : having taken place is far removed since Shri. Tilak had lodged the police complaint at the Deccan Police Station which was 20 kms. away from the factory gate, instead of lodging complaint at the Bhosari Police Station which was close to the factory. He further submitted that the other witnesses examined by the Respondent-Company at the enquiry had not witnessed the incident and therefore besides the bare words of Shri. Tilak, who was an interested witness, there was no corroborative evidence. The learned Advocate then submitted that the Petitioner had been implicated only to victimize him since he was an active member of the Union which had given the strike call. The learned Advocate further submits that the past service record of the Petitioner was unblemished and therefore the punishment of dismissal was wholly disproportionate. 7. The learned Counsel for the Respondent-Company, on the other hand, has urged that this Court should not interfere with the Award Part II in view of the WP/3960/1998 : 9 : brutal attack on Shri. Tilak. He submitted that the evidence led in the enquiry established that there was an assault on Shri. Tilak, who had identified his attackers. The learned Counsel submitted that the police complaint demonstrated the cruelty and brutality of the assault. According to him, the Management had led evidence to corroborate the testimony of Shri. Tilak in as much as seven witnesses were examined by them besides Shri. Tilak at the enquiry. The witnesses examined included the Medical Officer of the Respondent-Company who was present when Shri. Tilak was brought to the Sasoon Hospital in an injured state. The Respondent- Company has examined others witnesses who deposed that there was a riot and that loyal workers had been assaulted by the striking workers. The learned Counsel then pointed out that the Petitioner had chosen not to cross-examine Shri. Tilak and that victimization had not been established by the Petitioner. He further submitted that in defense the Petitioner had raised an alibi that he was absent on that day, which fact has not been WP/3960/1998 : 10 : established by him. The learned Counsel therefore submits that taking an over all view of the matter and the frame of mind of Shri. Tilak, when the incident occurred, it was quite natural for Shri. Tilak to have lodged a complaint at the Deccan Police Station, as he was residing near that Police Station. The learned Counsel therefore submits that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. In my opinion, the Labour Court has not committed any error by rejecting the Reference. The Labour Court has in a well reasoned Judgment held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse and that the evidence on record before the Enquiry Officer established the charge of misconduct alleged against the Petitioner. However, it appears, on perusing the order of the Labour Court, that it was perturbed by the fact that soon after the assault, Shri. Tilak expired. The Award II seems to suggest that the Labour Court had formed an impression that the death of Shri. Tilak had a direct nexus with the assault on the fateful WP/3960/1998 : 11 : day. There is nothing on record to draw an inference that there is any causal connection between the death of Shri. Tilak and the assault on him. It may be that he was mentally disturbed due to the assault. However, there is no evidence on record to infer that the death has occurred because of the assault. 9. However, the fact remains that Shri. Tilak was assaulted on 15th March, 1989. The Enquiry Officer and the Labour Court have found that there was sufficient evidence on record to establish that the Petitioner was involved with the assault on Shri. Tilak. Shri. Tilak himself had stated so when he deposed before the Enquiry Officer. The mere fact that there is no other eye-witness who could depose to the actual assault does not in any manner detract from the deposition of Shri. Tilak. The Labour Court has observed that there was no evidence on record to indicate that the relations between Shri. Tilak and the Petitioner were strained or that he had any animus against the WP/3960/1998 : 12 : Petitioner for him to involve the Petitioner’s name in the assault. The other witnesses who have been examined before the Enquiry Officer have supported the story of Shri. Tilak. Each of them have stated that they have seen Shri. Tilak in an injured condition. The Medical Officer of the Respondent- Company has explained his presence in the Sasoon Hospital when Shri. Tilak was brought to the hospital in an injured condition. He has spoken of the brutal injuries on Shri. Tilak. The totality of all these factors indicate that there was a brutal assault on Shri. Tilak and that the Petitioner was one of the persons who assaulted Shri. Tilak. Therefore, the charges levelled against the Petitioner have been amply proved. 10. In my opinion, there are no infirmities in the Award of the Labour Court for me to interfere under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 11. As regards the punishment imposed on the Petitioner by the Respondent-Company, the Labour WP/3960/1998 : 13 : Court has found that the punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the workman. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Shekdar, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Raj Pal Singh, reported in 60 S.C. Services Law Judgments 2002 (2), in support of his contention that even assuming the charges have been proved, the misconduct was not so severe as to warrant the punishment of dismissal. He submitted that the punishment can always be modified and a lesser punishment could be imposed on the Petitioner. Mr. Shekdar also relied on the judgment in the case of Griffon Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Shramik Sena, Mumbai & Ors., reported in 2002 (2) Mh.L.J. 381 , in support of his submission that since the charge sheet issued to the Petitioner was vague, the enquiry itself was vitiated. In my opinion, this Judgment does not support the Petitioner in any manner. Although I am not required to go into the aspect of whether the WP/3960/1998 : 14 : charge sheet issued was vague, since rule has been issued only on Award Part II, in my opinion, the charge sheet issued to the Petitioner contains a vivid description of the incident that occurred on 15th March, 1989 including the assault on Shri. Tilak triggered by the Petitioner. 12. In my opinion, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the Awards Part I and II of the Labour Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 14. Rule discharged accordingly. 15. No order as to costs.