Onkar Nath
Misra Vs. State of Haryana & Anr [2005] Insc 184 (17 March 2005)
N.Santosh
Hegde, B.P.Singh & S.B.Sinha Santosh Hegde,J.
The
appellant herein and some others were charged for certain misconduct of gheraoing
some senior officers of the Company for long hours. It is also stated that
during the gherao one of the officers, Manjeet Singh, received injuries. In a
domestic enquiry conducted by the Management, the charge-sheeted employees were
found guilty and they were dismissed from their service.
On a
reference being made in regard to the dismissals including that of the
appellant, the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-I Faridabad by its award
dated 24th of April, 2001 rejected the claim of the workmen, except in regard
to one Pradeep Sharda whose claim was allowed. In regard to other workmen
including the appellant herein the Labour Court believed the evidence of the Management witness Pritam
Singh as also other materials produced as Ext.M-11 to M-15. On that basis the Labour
Court came to the specific conclusion that the Management has established that
the workmen named therein including the appellant took an active part in the gherao
of H.S.Dhaliwal the then Vice-President (Works) and also caused injuries to Manjeet
Singh one of the officers who was also gheraoed. Having come to the said
conclusion and taking into consideration the gravity of the offence the Labour Court also came to the conclusion that
the punishment of dismissal was justified on the facts and circumstances of the
case.
The award
of the Labour Court came to be challenged by the
appellant and one Megh Singh by way of two writ petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which by a
common judgment dismissed both the writ petitions. The High Court in the course
of its order agreed with the Labour Court
that the evidence produced by the Management marked as Ext. M-6 as also the
documentary evidence Ext. M-11 to M-15 coupled with the evidence of Shri B.K.Uppal
Vice-President clearly established the misconduct alleged against the writ
petitioners before it. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had argued
before the High Court that the Labour Court
discriminated between them and Pradeep Sharma whose punishment was not upheld
by the Labour Court even though the evidence in regard
to all of them stood on a similar footing. The High Court agreed with the
finding of the Labour
Court that the case
of the petitioners before it and Pradeep Sharma did not stand on the same
footing inasmuch as from the material produced before the Labour Court it was clear that Pradeep Sharma
was falsely involved, while the misconduct alleged against the writ petitioners
had been duly established. It also did not accept the argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the punishment was in any manner
disproportionate to the misconduct proved.
Against
the common judgment in the two writ petitions, referred to herein above, two SLPs.
were preferred before this Court and this Court while entertaining the same at
the preliminary stage granted leave in respect of the present appeal only and
rejected the other petition. Therefore, Civil Appeal No. 3670 of 2003
pertaining to the Onkar Nath Misra is before us for consideration.
Learned
counsel appearing for the appellant seriously contended that from the entire
material produced before the Labour Court
in the form of Ext.M-11 to M-15 as well as the evidence of Pritam Singh and B.K.Uppal,
the Management had failed to establish the alleged misconduct. He also
contended that there was absolutely no difference in the evidence produced by
the Management between the case of the appellant and Pradeep Sharma who has
been granted relief by the Labour Court.
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that
the Labour court has taken into consideration the evidence brought on record
during the domestic enquiry as also the material available before it and has
rightly come to the conclusion that so far as the appellant is concerned his
involvement in the gherao was clearly proved. He submitted the fact that Pradeep
Sharma the other workman was exonerated of the misconduct alleged against him
would not by itself further the case of the appellant in any manner, hence, the
appellant is not entitled for relief in this appeal.
We
have perused the order of the Labour Court and the reasoning given therein
which was reconsidered by the High Court and we are in agreement with the
finding of the tribunal as well as by the High Court that from the material on
record it is established that the appellant did take part in the gherao of the
officers in which injury was caused to one of them. In such circumstances there
is no reason for us to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is
dismissed.
Back