Jharkhand High Court
Employees In Relation To Their Workman vs M/S. Tata Motors Limited (Formerly … on 9 January, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No.2735 of 2018
-----
Employees in relation to their workman, namely, Swapan
Kumar Aich, son of Late V.K. Aich, resident of Qr. No.K-
2/6, Road No.10, Telco Colony, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.
Telco, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum
(Jharkhand) (Now deceased) represented by
1(i) Shova Aich, W/o Late Swapan Kumar Aich
1(ii) Bipasa Aich, D/o Late Swapan Kumar Aich
Both are R/o House No.75, Zone No.5, Birsanagar, Telco,
P.O.-Chhota Gobindpur, P.S.-Telco, District-East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.
………. Petitioners.
-Versus-
M/s. Tata Motors Limited (formerly known as Telco
Limited), through its General Manager (Matls, ADD &
SQIG), having office at Telco Colony, P.O. & P.S.-
Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.
………. Respondent.
—–
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
—–
For the Petitioners : Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
—–
Order No.10 Date: 09.01.2025
1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing and
setting aside the award dated 18.12.2017 passed by the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference
Case No.15 of 2010, whereby it was held that the order of
dismissal of the original petitioner from the service of M/S
Tata Motors Limited was just fair and appropriate which did
not require interference.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a criminal
case arising out of the same occurrence was also instituted
against the original petitioner in which he was subsequently
acquitted on 19.04.2018 whereas the impugned order was
passed by the learned labour court on 18.12.2017 and hence,
acquittal of the original petitioner has a bearing in the
present case.
3. It is further submitted that the original petitioner was not
solely responsible for putting his signatures on the challan
receipts concerning supply of tyres as he had acted on the
instructions of his superior. Moreover, it was a general
practice to put the receipt signature on the challan without
physical examination due to the reason that materials used to
be unloaded in different area by the drivers of about 60
trucks (average) everyday which was not possible to check
individually. It is also submitted that considering the nature of
allegation, the punishment imposed upon the original
petitioner is disproportionate to the charges proved.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, while
opposing the prayer, has submitted that the original
petitioner was charged for the acts of misconduct i.e. “(i)
habitual negligence or neglect of duty or work and (ii)
deceptive or corrupt practices”. It was alleged that the
petitioner had acknowledged the receipt of consignment of
tyres on several challans of different dates, however, the
same was never physically reported to have been unloaded at
the area where it was sent. The details of the challan
numbers along with their respective dates were also
mentioned in the charge sheet issued to the original
petitioner.
-2-
W.P. (L) No.2735 of 2018
5. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the
preliminary issue regarding fairness of domestic enquiry was
decided by a specific order and it was held to be fair and
proper. The acquittal of the original petitioner in the criminal
case after the passing of the impugned award, has no
bearing in the matter. It is further submitted that the nature
of allegation and the evidences adduced in the criminal case
and the domestic enquiry are different though they arise out
of the same incident.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the
following judgments on the scope of enquiry before the
learned labour court, once the domestic enquiry is held to be
fair and proper:-
(i) (1974) 3 SCC 712 (The East India Hotels Vs.
Their Workmen and others) paragraph 5
(ii) 2018 (1) JCR 159 (Jhr) The management of
Telco Vs. K.C. Bandyopadhyaya) paragraph 6
7. On the point of quantum of punishment, learned counsel for
the respondent has submitted that there was complete loss of
confidence of the management in the original petitioner
which has been taken note of in the impugned award and in
support of the same following judgements have been relied
upon:-
(iii) (2018) 1 SCC 285 (Management of Bharat
Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. M. Mani) paragraph
30
This judgment has been referred to submit that once
the confidence is lost, the order of dismissal is justified.
On the same line, it has also been referred to the
-3- W.P. (L) No.2735 of 2018
judgment reported in 2009 SCC Online Jhar 660
(M.Y. Khan Vs. M/s Tata Engineering &
Locomotive Co. Ltd.) paragraph 5 (vii)
(iv) 2014 SCC Online Jhar 2689 (Raghaw Prasad
Shahi Vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and
Ors.) paragraph 7
8. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted
that there is no perversity in the impugned award, and
accordingly, the same does not call for any interference
under writ jurisdiction.
Findings of this Court:
9. The following charges were levelled against the workman:
“Charges
You are hereby charged with having committed the acts of
misconducts as described hereinafter under Works Standing Order
No.24 and more particularly under sub-clause of the said Standing
Order
On the (date and time of incident)
when you were on duty/not on duty, you are alleged to have
committed the following acts of misconducts:
Sub-clause
(iv) “Habitual negligence or neglect of duty or work.”
(xv) “Deceptive or corrupt practices”
Brief description of the incident corresponding to the acts of
misconducts as stated above.
It is alleged that you have acknowledged the receipt of the
consignment of tyres on Challan but the same have not been
physically reported at tyre unloading area. The details mentioned
below:
Challan Challan Challan No. Challan date
No. date
4781 26.06.2006 NSK 17570 29.01.2007
NSK 6126 20.07.2006 NSK 17567 29.01.2007
6066 19.07.2006 NSK 19147 22.02.2007
NSK 1098 11.10.2006 NSK 19150 22.02.2007
NSK 10915 11.10.2006 NSK 19053 21.02.2007
NSK 12118 01.11.2006 NSK 19056 21.02.2007
NSK 12121 01.11.2006
NSK 17358 25.01.2007
It is further alleged that you have repeatedly neglected your duty
and indulged in deceptive practices, hence rendered yourself liable
for disciplinary action.
You are called upon to submit your explanation in writing to the
-4- W.P. (L) No.2735 of 2018
chargesheet on or before the 28.05.2007 showing cause why
disciplinary action should not be taken against you under the Works
Standing Orders. Please note that you are suspended from duty with
immediate effect pending further proceedings, if no explanation is
received within the time stipulated, further action as may be
appropriate would be taken in the matter.”
10. The enquiry report has been placed on record. On perusal of
the enquiry report, it appears that a management witness
namely H.P. Choudhary (working as Manager Materials) was
examined and the workman/original petitioner, in spite of
given opportunity, had declined to cross-examine the said
witness.
11. The workman/original petitioner, however, stated that he was
a Grade-I employee working as Material Associate and
therefore, was discharging the duty of trust and confidence
as he was looking after the store management. The proved
misconduct against the workman is that on 11 different
dates, he acknowledged the receipts of the consignment of
tyres on the challan but did not physically report at the tyre
unloading area of the company and therefore, was found
guilty of misconduct of habitual negligence or neglect of duty
or work and also of deceptive or corrupt practices.
12. During the enquiry, he was finally found guilty of the charges
of negligence of duty as well as deceptive or corrupt
practices. The learned labour court decided the fairness of
the domestic enquiry by a separate order dated 20.07.2013
and it was held that the said enquiry was fair and proper.
Having gone through the order dated 20.07.2013, the same
-5- W.P. (L) No.2735 of 2018
is found to be a well-reasoned one. So far as the fairness of
domestic enquiry is concerned, no illegality as such has been
pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in course of
argument. Perusal of the domestic enquiry report reveals that
on the basis of the reply filed by the original petitioner in the
domestic inquiry, it was recorded that the original petitioner
did not deny his signatures on the challans and admitted that
he had merely acknowledged the challans without doing the
preliminary checks i.e physically ensuring the unloading of
vehicles, thereby neglecting his duty. Further, the natural
justice was duly followed while conducting the domestic
enquiry.
13. Learned Labour Court finally decided the case within the
ambit of Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act and held that
the workman was a Material Associate Grade 1 and by virtue
of the said post, he was dealing with the materials of the
department and was holding a post of trust and confidence.
The learned labour court also recorded that the workman was
holding a post of trust and confidence, and therefore, the
management was justified in dismissing him on the basis of
proved misconduct. The finding of the learned labour court
recorded in paragraph no.10 to 12 are as under:
“10. The workman was a Material Associate
Grade-1 in the Management and therefore, was
discharging a duty of trust and confidence as he was
looking after the store management. The proved
misconduct against the workman is that on different
11 dates, he acknowledged the receipts of the
consignment of tyres on the challan but did not-6- W.P. (L) No.2735 of 2018
physically report at the tyre unloading area of the
company and therefore, was found guilty of
misconduct of habitual negligence or neglect of duty
or work and also of deceptive or corrupt practices.
11. Admittedly, the workman was holding a
post of trust and confidence as he was involved in
the store material dealing and also he has been
found guilty of misconduct of moral turpitude
involving store materials. This workman has lost the
trust and confidence of the management. The
management cannot be asked to retain a workman
who having a post of trust and confidence has
washed away. In no way such a workman be again
allowed to make appearance on such floor of work
of trust and confidence. It is also well settled that
once the workman is found guilty of misconduct of
act involving moral turpitude of direct or indirect of
financial matter, the managerial action taken for
dismissal of such workman orally cannot be
disturbed in a judicial proceeding.
12. If I take into the consideration the
holistic situation specially the nature of misconduct
proved and the punishment awarded to the
workman, I find that the managerial action of
dismissing the workman from its services does not
require any interference and is held to be just fair
and appropriate managerial action. In this view of
the matter, the court does not feel proper to
interfere under the power of court as envisaged
under Section 11A of Industrial Dispute Act for
interference.”
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that
since the original petitioner was subsequently acquitted in the
criminal case vide judgment dated 19.04.2018, the order of
dismissal is liable to be set-aside and he deserves to be
reinstated in service. On perusal of the judgement of
acquittal, this court finds that the original petitioner was
charged for offence under Sections 406, 407, 408, 409, 467,
468, 471 and 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and two
-7- W.P. (L) No.2735 of 2018
persons faced the trial. In course of trial of the criminal case,
the set of witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution
was totally different from the set of witnesses produced in
the domestic enquiry. The nature of allegation was also
different as the petitioner was charged of negligence of duty
in the domestic enquiry, whereas the same was not the
subject matter of consideration in the criminal trial.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this
Court is of the view that the acquittal of the original petitioner
in the criminal case vide judgment dated 19.04.2018 has no
bearing in the present case.
16. Hence, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned
award passed by the learned labour court calling for an
interference under writ jurisdiction of this Court.
17. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Vikas/
-8-
W.P. (L) No.2735 of 2018
[ad_1]
Source link