Jharkhand High Court
Tata Iron And Steel Company Limited … vs The Concerned Workman R.N. Singh on 28 January, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2429 of 2010
Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited presently known as Tata Steel
Ltd, a registered company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956
having its registered office at 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai
and having its works at Jamshedpur, District-Singhbhum (East)
through Sri A.K. Verma, son of Late B. N. Verma, Sr. Manager, H.R.
I.R. Legal, Tata Steel Ltd, R/o - C-7, Gangotri Enclave, Anil Sur Path,
Ulyan, P.O. and P.S. - Kadma, Jamshedpur, Distt - Singhbhum (East)
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The concerned Workman R.N. Singh, son of late Lalji Singh
presently residing at Jawahar Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Mango
Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum (East)
2. The State of Jharkhand through the officer-in charge-Mango Police
Station, P.O. & P.S. - Mango, Jamshedpur District Singhbhum
(East) ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
—
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate
: Mr. Shray Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. K.K. Ambastha, Advocate
—
Lastly heard on 11.12.2024
35/28.01.2025 This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
“a. For the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction / or a direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of
the award dated 25.1.10 passed in Reference case No. 10/98 by the
Learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder a
direction has been issued to reinstate the workman in the service and
to pay 50% of back wages and to pay the entire dues within 60 days
failing which the management shall pay interest @ 6% p.a.
AND/OR
b. For the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction / or a direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of
the order dated 15.2.2006 passed by Learned Labour Court,
Jamshedpur by which the preliminary issue with respect to the
fairness of the domestic enquiry has been wrongly decided and
therefore to quash all subsequent proceedings thereto.
c. During the pendency of the instant writ petition, the operation of
impugned order may be stayed.
And/or
d. For issuance of such other writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as this
Hon’ble Court may think just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case doing conscionable justice to the
petitioners.”
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated
25.01.2010, passed in Reference Case No.10 of 1998, by learned
Labour Court, Jamshedpur, whereby the dismissal of the workman has
been set aside, and the workman has been directed to be reinstated in
service with 50% back wages, and a direction has also been passed for
payment of simple interest, in case the award is not implemented
within 60 days.
3. The terms of reference are as under:
“Whether the termination of services of Shri R.N. Singh Crane
Operator, P.No. 126717 of Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd;
Jamshedpur is justified? If not, what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
Arguments of the petitioner , the management.
4. The learned counsel submits that the concerned workmen faced
the domestic enquiry, the domestic inquiry was held to be improper
and ultimately the parties led evidence before the labour court and the
impugned award has been passed.
5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel has
submitted that he does not want to press his grievance in connection
with the finding of learned labour court that the domestic inquiry was
held to be improper.
6. However, while assailing the impugned award, the learned
counsel has submitted that the manner in which the evidences have
been appreciated is not in consonance with the concept of
preponderance of probabilities. He has submitted that the victim of the
incident had fully supported the case, and amongst the management
witnesses, one of the witnesses was hearsay, inasmuch as he did not
see the incident himself, but he had interacted with the victim
immediately after the incident, and he was involved in taking the
victim to the hospital. He has also fully supported the case of the
management. The learned counsel has also referred to the evidence of
the victim, who has supported the case and stated before the court that
2
the incident had taken place inside the premises of the industrial unit
and he suffered stitches on the right ear.
7. The learned counsel has also submitted that the learned court
after having held that the management failed to prove the case against
the concerned workman while deciding other issues, has also touched
upon the proportionality of the punishment imposed by the
management and has held that the punishment imposed was
disproportionate and excessive.
8. The learned counsel has submitted that the matter arises out of
fight between two persons inside the factory premises in which one of
the persons was injured and there is an allegation that he was assaulted
with an iron rod. The learned court has drawn adverse inference on
account of non-production of the rod before the court. The learned
counsel has submitted that the entire approach of the learned court was
erroneous, and therefore, it calls for interference in writ jurisdiction.
9. With respect to the manner in which the evidences are to be
appreciated by the Labour Court, the learned counsel has also relied
upon the following judgments:
i. (2008) 5 SCC 554 (Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs.
Management of Usha Breco & Anr.) paragraph 33, 36,
38 and 39.
ii. (1977) 2 SCC 491 (State of Haryana and Anr. Vs.
Rattan Singh) paragraph 4.
iii. (2005) 3 SCC 241 (Cholan Roadways Ltd. Vs. G.
Thirugnanasambandam) paragraph 15, 16 and 19;
iv. (2005) 3 SCC 254 (Divisional Controller, KSRTC
(NWKRTC) Vs. A.T. Mane) paragraph 8 to 11
to submit that essentially the evidences are to be
appreciated in line with the principles of preponderance
of probability. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable
and hearsay evidence can also be relied upon if
otherwise it is reliable.
10. With respect to the proportionality of punishment, he has
referred to the judgment reported in (2005) 3 SCC 401 (M.P.
3
Electricity Board Vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma) paragraphs 1, 7, 8
and 9 and (2005) 7 SCC 338 (V.Ramana Vs. A.P. SRTC and Ors.)
paragraphs 6 to 12. He has further submitted that assault in the
workplace is sufficient to sustain the order of dismissal and for this
proposition, he has relied upon the judgment reported in (2006) 1 SCC
430 (Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Anr. Vs. State of
Karnataka and Ors.) paragraphs 17 to 26.
Arguments of the respondent, the concerned workman .
11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, the
concerned workman on the other hand, while opposing the prayer has
referred to the evidence of the victim, who was examined as MW1,
and submitted that the victim in his cross-examination could not
disclose as to in which ear, there was stitch. He has further referred to
evidence of MW2 at page no.62, paragraph 6, to submit that MW2 had
himself stated that he had not seen the incident and so far as the victim
is concerned, he did not disclose as to how he got hurt, but he simply
stated that there was some bleeding from his ears. He has also referred
to paragraph 11 of the cross-examination of MW2 to submit that he is
the person who is said to have written the complaint, but during his
cross-examination he has stated that he did not remember as to what
he wrote in the complaint (Ext. M/1). The learned counsel has also
referred to the evidence of the workmen at page 66 who stated in
paragraph 3 that the allegation against him was incorrect.
12. The learned counsel has also submitted that the learned labour
court has considered the materials on record in right perspectives and
there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned award calling for
any interference. The charge was not proved, and therefore, the
impugned award does not call for any interference. He has also
submitted that arising out of the incident, no criminal case was
instituted.
Findings of this court.
13. The allegations in the charge sheet and the first response of the
concerned workman were as follows:-
Charge sheet dated 14.08.1995
4
On 14-8-95 you were in ‘A’ shift duty from 6 A.M. to 2
P.M. During the course of your shift at about 6.15 A.M., you
abused and assaulted Shri J. Das, P. No. 69780, Crane Operator
(C-9), L.D. II Section of Elect. (Op)- Genl. near Scale Pit
Area/Tundish bay with iron rod resulting in profuse bleeding
from nose and ear.
Shri. J. Das was immediately rushed to the hospital for
treatment.
The above act on your part amounts to gross
misconduct under Section 23 of our Works Standing Orders.
Explanation dated 16.08.1995
In reply to the above charge sheet I have to submit that I
have not abused and assaulted Shri J. Das P. No. 69780 Cr. Op.
(C-09) of L.D. II Section of Elect. Op. Gl. as alleged in the
charge sheet. I have to state that I was talking to him, Plate
pieces are kept there. Shri Das while going came in contact with
the Plate fell down and sustained injury so there was bleeding. It
is not a fact that I have assaulted him with Iron Rod.
Therefore, I request you to withdraw the charge sheet.
In case enquiry deemed essential it should be conducted
accompanying U.C.M.
14. The workman has filed written statement in which he stated that
charge sheet dated 14.08.1995 containing the allegation that while on
duty in ‘A’ shift (6:00 am to 02:00 PM) on 14.08.1995, the workman
abused and assaulted Sri J. Das Crane Operator, Section Electrical
Operation General at about 16:00 hrs. It was alleged that the bleeding
to Sri Das started and he was rushed to the hospital for treatment. The
workman filed written statement and challenged the competence of the
authority who issued the charge sheet and alleged that the domestic
enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and
denied the charges.
15. It was the case of the management before the learned labour
court that the concerned workman was employed in the company on
and from 28.09.1993 and at the relevant time of issuance of charge
sheet he was working as crane operator. The concerned workman was
charge sheeted for serious misconduct vide charge sheet dated
14.08.1995 and explanation dated 16.08.1995 was found
unsatisfactory and accordingly domestic enquiry was conducted in
accordance with the principles of natural justice in which the
5
workman was found guilty and was dismissed from 16.10.1995 after
giving the workman an opportunity to respond to the enquiry report.
16. The fairness of domestic enquiry was taken as the preliminary
issue and vide order dated 15.02.2006 the labour court held that the
domestic enquiry conducted by the management was not fair and
proper by citing reasons. The labour court recorded that neither the
complainant Mr. J. Das nor the witnesses supported the charge sheet
during the domestic enquiry that the concerned workman had abused
and assaulted Mr. J. Das by fist and by an iron rod. The labour court
also recorded that the findings of the enquiry officer was not based on
the enquiry before him during domestic enquiry, rather, it was based
on the report of preliminary enquiry.
17. As a result of the holding of the Domestic Enquiry as not fair
and proper, the parties were called upon to lead their evidence in
support of their respective case. On the basis of the pleadings to the
parties, the following issues were framed for consideration:
“i) Whether the termination of services of Sri R. N. Singh,
Crane Operator, P. No. 126717 of M/s. Tisco Ltd;
Jamshedpur as made by the management is proper and
justified?
ii) Whether the disciplinary authority who had issued
chargesheet dated 14.08.1995 and office order appointing
Enquiry Officer and punishing authority who had issued
dismissal letter dated 16.10.1995 were conferred with a
power and an authority to do the same?
iii) Whether the punishment as awarded against the
chargesheeted workman in respect to misconduct
committed by him, is harsh and disproportionate?
iv) Whether it is a fit case to exercise power / jurisdiction
u/s 11A of I.D. Act 1947 in interfering the punishment as
awarded by the management?
v) To what relief/relieves, the workman Sri R.N. Singh is
entitled to receive?”
18. The issue contained in paragraph 6 (ii) was decided in favour of
the management and the finding has attained finality as the concerned
6
workman has not filed any cross writ or cross objection challenging
that finding in connection with issue No. 6(ii).
19. In order to prove the charges, the management examined
altogether three witnesses i.e. M.W. 1 Mr. Jagnath Das (the victim),
M.W. 2 Mr. Ganesh Ram, M.W.3 Dr. N.C. Mahato and also proved a
number of documents. The documentary evidence are as follows:
1 Exhibit M Statement dated 14.8.1995 submitted by
Mr. J. Das (the victim)
2 Exhibit Statement of Mr. Ganesh Ram, co-
M/1 employee submitted on 14.08.1995.
3 Exhibit Charge-sheet dated 14.08.1995
M/2
4 Exhibit Explanation dated 16.08.1995
M/3
5 Exhibit Medical prescription dated 14.8.1995 of
M/4 Mr. J. Das.
6 Exhibit Statement of Sri Sheo Pratap Singh co-
M/5 employee dated 14.8.1995
7 Exhibit Board Resolution dated 21.11.1974
M/6 granting powers to the Managing
Director.
8 Exhibit Circular letter dated 13.12.1994
M/7 regarding delegation of powers.
9 Exhibit Second show cause dated 10.10.1995
M/8 submitted by charge-sheeted workman.
20. On the other hand, the workman examined himself as W.W.1
and has produced and examined witness as W.W. 2 Mr. Sheo Pratap
Singh. It is important to note that the doctor who had treated Mr. J.
Das was not examined from the side of the management.
21. The management submitted before the learned labour court that
on 14.08.1995 the concerned workman had inflicted injury to Mr. J.
Das, Crane Operator by using iron rod which led to bleeding of his
nose and ears and he was immediately rushed to the hospital for
treatment and medical prescription & injury report was prepared by
the doctor which was filed on the record. The injury happened when
the work was being done in ‘A’ shift about 6:15 when the concerned
workman used criminal force and assaulted Mr. J. Das. It was argued
7
that there was sufficient materials and evidence with respect to the
occurrence.
22. The learned labour court scrutinized the evidence of the most
important witness M.W.1 Mr. J. Das who had also a victim. With
respect to the incident, Mr. J. Das had deposed that on 14.08.1995 he
was at reliever duty and used to relive three crane operator for two
hours during their shift respectively and the charge sheeted workman
requested M.W.1 for giving him relive hour from 10:00 am to 12:00
noon in place to 12:00 noon to 02:00 PM but M.W.1 refused which
caused annoyance to the charge sheeted workman and he started
abusing M.W. 1 and also inflicted fist blow over the nose of M.W. 1
and M.W.1 fell on the ground and bleeding was going on from his
nose and thereafter charge sheeted workman again inflicted another
blow of iron rod over the ear of M.W.1 and fled away but this witness
could not say on which ear the iron blow was inflicted. M.W.1 was
taken to Tata Main Hospital where he was treated by a doctor and he
was given stitches in the right ear during the treatment. This witness
has been fully cross examined and stated that in the office Mr. S.P.
Singh, and Ganesh Ram (M.W.2) were present at the time of the
incident and pursuant to the injury during the incident he was on sick
leave for nine days and thereafter join his duty. So far as M.W.2 is
concerned, he has stated that he had not seen the incident and stated
that M.W.1 (victim) told him that there has been some scuffle and
altercation with the concerned workman who abused M.W.1 (victim).
This witness has also supported the case with respect to the fact that
M.W.1 (victim) suffered injury but he had not seen the incident. He
has been cross examined and has stated that he is not aware about
what is written in his statement which was exhibited as exhibit-M/1
and he could not remember that M.W.1 (victim) told him that what the
concerned workman thinks of himself and that he shall see to it that
the concerned workman is booked. This Court finds that the allegation
against the concerned workman that he had abused M.W.1 (victim)
and assaulted him with iron rod leading to his injury but there is no
allegation of any scuffle leading to fall of M.W.1 (victim) causing any
8
injury. The M.W.1 (victim) has also not specified the words which
was said to have been used as abuse against him by the concerned
workman. Further, neither the iron rod which was used as a weapon
for assault leading to injury has been exhibited nor the doctor who had
treated M.W.1 (victim) has been examined by the management. So far
as the M.W.3 is concerned, he has just exhibited the prescription of
M.W.1 (victim) and he had neither seen M.W.1 after injury nor had
treated him. The case of the concerned workman who was examined
as W.W-1 throughout right from his reply to show cause was that
M.W.1 (victim) had filled on his own accord and suffered injuries and
the allegation of abuse and assault by iron rod was denied.
23. This Court finds that the learned labour court has considered all
the materials placed on record both oral and documentary and has
threadbare considering the evidences including the evidence of the
M.W.1 (victim). The learned court has considered the cross
examination of all the witnesses and found that the evidence of the
witnesses on behalf of the management was inconsistent. The learned
court recorded that M.W.1 (victim) who alleged to have been abused
by the concerned workman had not even disclosed the words uttered
by the concerned workman. Further he could not say as to which of
the ear iron blow as inflicted by the concerned workman. The learned
court also considered the fact that the management did not examine
the concerned doctor who is said to have treated M.W.1 (victim).
M.W.1 (victim) deposed during his cross examination that there was
stitches given in his right ear during treatment. He has also deposed
that the matter was not reported to the police and during cross
examination this witness could not say in which ear stitches were
given during treatment. The learned court further considered that
M.W.1 (victim) had deposed that the incident had taken place in
presence of Ganesh Ram who was examined as M.W. 2. But Ganesh
Ram had deposed that he had not seen the alleged incident by his own
eyes but he heard about the incident and came to know that Mr. J. Das
had sustained injury but how and what manner he sustained injury he
was not conversant with the same. He has simply stated that M.W.1
9
(victim) had narrated that there was some scuffle between M.W.1
(victim) and the concerned workman on the point of relieving on duty
hours and some abusive language was also used, due to which M.W.1
(victim) fell on ground and sustained injury and thereafter his
treatment was made in the hospital. M.W. 3 is the doctor who deposed
that first aid station is situated in the factory premises for the
employees, if they sustained injury, and first aid is given to them if
there was minor injury and in case of severe injury the patient is
referred to Tata Main Hospital for better treatment. He proved the
prescription slip which was issued in the name of M.W.1 (victim)
which was prepared by another doctor and from the perusal of the
exhibit M/4, it reveals that there was contusion on right ear and patient
was referred to Tata Main Hospital for treatment. During cross
examination, it came to light that this doctor had worked with the
concerned doctor who treated Mr. J. Das only since 1996 and
prescription slip was prepared on 14.08.1995. The court recorded that
M.W. 3 was just a formal witness for the purposes of identifying the
signature of the doctor concerned who had put his signature on the
prescription slip. Admittedly, the concerned doctor who had prepared
the prescription slip was not examined. The concerned workman was
examined and he had denied the charges and claimed innocence and
deposed that M.W.1 (victim) had fallen down on the ground as per his
own and also denied about used of any filthy language against M.W.1
(victim) and denied that he had inflicted injury by iron rod on M.W.1
(victim) this witness has also been fully cross examined.
24. The learned court after scrutinizing the materials on record held
that the management was not able to prove the incident as well as use
of abusive language and inflicted iron rod by the concerned workman
over the person of M.W.1 (victim) and witness S.P. Singh (W.W.-2)
and witness Ganesh Ram (M.W-2) had not supported and
corroborated about the incident dated 14.08.1995 occurred in the
factory premises of M/s Tisco limited and also recorded that even the
iron rod said to be used in the incident was not produced as a material
exhibit and ultimately, held that the charges were not proved.
10
25. This Court finds that the learned labour court has meticulously
examined all materials on record. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has primarily submitted that the materials ought to have
been examined on the touch stone of preponderance of probability.
There is no doubt that in the matter before the learned labour court the
evidence is to be examined on the principles of preponderance of
probability but at the same time, the allegations are required to be
proved by the cogent evidence. In the present case, even the M.W.1
(victim) had not fully supported his case as discussed by the learned
labour court and was not able to give the particulars about the
incident; the M.W. 2 who was according to M.W.1 (victim) was an
eye witness to the incident has also denied to have been the eye
witness. The concerned workman gave his evidence that the victim
had fallen on the ground due to which he got hurt. The doctor who had
examined the victim was not produced as witness in order to depose
with respect to the nature and the manner of injury to the M.W.1
(victim). The victim also did not disclose as to what filthy words were
used by the concerned workman against him.
26. In the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of GE Power (India) Ltd. v. A. Aziz reported in (2021) 13 SCC
243 the scope of issuance of writ of certiorari has been reiterated by
quoting the following extract from the constitutional bench judgement
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob v. K.S.
Radhakrishnan which is reproduced as under: –
“7. … A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors
of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals; these
are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or
tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a
result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly
be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the
court or tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance,
it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard
to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure
adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of
natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory
jurisdiction and the court exercising it is not entitled to act as
an appellate court. This limitation necessarily means that
findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal as a11
result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or
questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is
apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ,
but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In
regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of
certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the
said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit
admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously
admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the
impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no
evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can
be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this
category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that
a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be
challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the
ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced
before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain
the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence
led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the
said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ
court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on
the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari
can be legitimately exercised.”
27. The law is well settled that the writ court does not exercise
appellate jurisdiction over the award passed by the learned labour
court /labour tribunal and it is impermissible to re-appreciate the
evidence and drawing conclusions on pure questions of fact. The
findings of fact recorded by a fact-finding authority namely labour
court duly constituted for the purpose ordinarily should be considered
as final and cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having been
based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion
of the writ court to warrant those findings. It is well settled that as
long as the findings are based upon some material which are relevant
for the purpose there is no scope for interference. Interference is not
permissible even on the ground that there is yet another view which
can reasonably and possibly be taken. There is no scope for
interference with respect to finding of fact in absence of any perversity
with regards to consideration of materials placed on record or in the
very approach of the labour court in the matter of appreciation of
materials which goes to the root of the matter or the findings suffer
from error apparent on the face of the record.
12
28. On going through the findings of the labour court, this Court is
of the view that the learned labour court has well appreciated the
materials on record to come to a conclusion that the charges were not
proved. The learned labour court has undertaken objective approach
and arrived at reasonable findings based on materials sufficient
enough to record its findings. This Court under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India would not embark upon an exercise of
reassessing the evidence and arriving at own findings giving a
complete go-by to the facts specifically found and recorded by the
Tribunal below.
29. This Court has carefully gone through the evidence which
formed the basis of findings recorded by the learned labour court and
is of the view that the findings are unassailable as it is based on proper
appreciation of evidence. The materials have been considered on the
touch stone of pre-ponderance of probabilities and it has been
recorded that the management could not prove the charges against the
concerned workman. It is not also a case where any relevant evidence
has been ignored or any inadmissible evidence taken into account.
30. Upon going through the impugned award, this Court is of the
considered view that the learned labour court has examined the case
on the touch stone of preponderance of probability but even on the
touch stone of preponderance of probability the management was
unable to prove the charges against the concerned workman. This
Court is the view that there is no scope for re-appreciate the evidence
on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to
point out any material from the record to hold that the impugned
award is perverse. This Court finds no merits in this writ petition,
which is hereby dismissed.
31. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Rakesh
13
[ad_1]
Source link