Haryana Gazette, 1983-04-27, No. 23

1322

HARYANA GOVT GAZ ., JUNE 7, 1983 ( JYST. 17, 1905 SAKA)

[ PART 1

No. 9(1)82-6Lab /3236 . --- In pursuance of the provision of section 17 the Jodustrial Disputes Act,
1947 (Act No. XIV of 1947), the Governor of Haryana is pleased to priblish the following award of
the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad , in respect of the dispute between the workman and the
management of M s Robindra Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd .; 14 ; 5, Mathura Road , Faridabad : - .

IN THE COURT OF SHRI HARI SINGH KAUSHIK , PRESIDING OFFICER , LABOUR

COURT, HARYANA , FARIDABAD

Reference No. 201 of 1982

between

SHRI KHEM CHAND , WORKMAN AND THE RESPONDENT MANAGEMENT OF MIS
ROBINDRA TEXTILE MILLS PVT. LID ., 14,5 , MATHURA ROAD , FARIDABAD

Shri Darshan Singh , for the workman ,
Shri G. S. Chauchary, for the respondent management.

AWARD

This reference No. 201 of 1982 has been referred to this Court by the Hon blu Governor of Haryana ,
vide his order No. D / FD /94/ 82/ 34020, dated 21st July, 1982 under section (100c) of the

Industiral Disp utcs Act, 1947 , exisung butwein Shri Khem Chand , workm : n and the respondent
mina gome.it of M /s . Robindra Textile Mills , Pvt. Ltd. 1475 , Mathura Rozd, Faridabad , The term of
tbe reference was : --

Whether the termination of service of Shri Khem Chand was justified and in order ? If

not, to what relief is he entitled ?

Notices were issued to the parties on receiving this reference order . The parties appeared
and filed their plcadings. The case of the workman according to demand notice and claim statement
is that he was working in the factory since 10th February, 1974 as Shuttlrmaa and drawing a salary of
Rs 300 p . m . He was arrested on 6th May, 1981 on baseless charges. The enquiry was held and
ho was not allowed to produce his evidence and not allowed to cross- examinc the witnesses. The
enquiry was arbitrary and one sided , The termination was illegal and against the law . So he is entitled
for his reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages .

The case of the respondent according to written statement is that the wojkman was correctly
terminated from the service after proper enquiry. The workman was given charge -sheet in which gravo
and serious charges were alleged against the claimant. The charges were for disobeying , refusa !
of work , rebuks to Commander, tried to stab with a knife , threatened to murder, collected
miscreants and waiting outside the factory upto 1.30 a.m. for Shri Piare Lal, Commander , which
were serious charges under the certified standing order. The enquiry officer was appointed who called
the workman for enquiry and the workman participated in the enquiry and the workman teſt the
enquiry when he knew that the charges were proved against him though he was given full
opportunity to produce his defcucc . He was given the opportunity to cross -examined the witnesses
The enquiry was inpartial and was conducted according to procedure and law . According to
findings of the cnquiry officer dated 25th October, 1981 all the charges levelled against the workman .
proved prima-facie and the workman was held guilty of the charges . So the respondent terminatod the
services of the workman . After considering the findings of the enquiry the workman was terminated
after a proper and fair enquiry . So he has no claim and the perference may be answered in their
favour.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :
1. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent is proper, justified and in

order ? If so , to what effect ?

2. Whether the termiination of services of the workman is proper , justified and in order ?

If not, to what relief is he entitled ?
Issue No. I is ordered to be treated as preliminary issue and my findings on issue is as under:

Issue No. :

The representative of the respondent argued on this issue that as stated by Shri S. S. Sachdeva ,
Enquiry Officer as MW -1 he knows the claimant and be conducted the enquiry against him . He was
appointed as enquiry Officer on 23rd May, 1981. Shri Babu lal was representing the workman on behalf
of the workman . The workman appeared and participated in the enquiry . There were serious charges

PART 1 ]

HARYANA GOVT GAZ. , JUNE 7 , 1983 JYST 17 , 1905 SAKA )

1323

up

against the daimant Shri Khem Chand regarding disobeying the order of his Commander , rebuking his
Commander, trying to stab his Commander with a knife, threatening to murder his Commander and
brought 5-6 miscreants after the close of the shift and waited for Shri Piare Lal, Commander upto
1. 30. a . m . during duty hours within the factory premises while on duty which constitute a
seriuos mis -conduct against a workman under the certified standing orders of the company
He gave full facilities to to the workman which he demanded in the enquiry and also allowed
the workman to assist him in the enquiry. The workman asked the outsider to represent in the
enquiry , - vide Ex . M-? and Ex . M -3 which was replied to him . The enquiry proceedings were
fixed for 4,5 dates in which the workmio participated . The witnesses of the respondent were
taken in his prosence Erd he cross - xamined the witnesses . On 6th June, 1981, he did not come
in the enquiry. So the er: quiry was adjcuned for the next date ard the workmin was sent a rugis :ered
lottor . On 6th June, 1981 at about 2,00 p , m . when the onquiry was started ho sent Shri Mchtb singh
Socurity Officer in the enquiry room where he stated ibat the workmºn las boycotted the enquiry. He
gava Ex.M - 4 in thu cn quiry in which the mossenger of the workman narrated that the workman camc
on the gate and did ret want to particip.10 in the enquiry. His Tuprescntative also came at 2.40 p.m.
and also stated that the workman has asked him not to participate in the enquiry as he is not
participating in the enquiry . After this date the enquiry was adjourned and a letter was written
to the workman on 12th Junc, 1981 through registered post to call the workman for 15th June , 1981.
The Iciter Ex . M - 5 was sent to the workman . The postal receipt is EX . M -6 , but on 15th Juoe, 1981
the workman did not turn up . In the absence of the workman , the proceedings were adjourned and
another letter dated 10th July , 1981 Ex.M -6 was sent through registered post , fixing the date as
16th July, 1981 for hearing. The workman received the same and acknowlegement receipt is Ex.M -7
which bears the signature of the workman . The letter sent to the workman on 12th Junc, 1981 received
back . undelivered which is Ex . M -8 . After receiving the acknowledgement bearing the signature of
the workman ex-parte proceedings were started against the workman on 16th July , 1981 on that date .
The respondent produced no other evidence and closed their case . So the findings were given after
going through the proceedings of the enquiry . The findings of the enquiry officer is Ex . M - 10 .
The copy of complaint Ex . M - 11 and charge -sheet Ex . M- 12 were given by Shri Guljar Singh .
The knife which was used by the workman and snached by Shri Guljar Singh is Ex . M - 13. The
workman was given the full opportunity during the proceedings. He further argued that as stated
by the workman in his cross-examination as ww- he cross-examined the respondent witnesses as he has
stated in his cross -examination that he cross -examined Shri Gulzar Singh , witness of the respondents.
He also admitted in his cross-examination that he was present in the cnquiry on 4th June, 1981 and
all the witnesses were taken in his presence . He further admitted that the copy of the
proceedings were given to him , He also admitted the hot words with Shri Piare Lal, Commander
who made the complaint Ex -M -11. He further admitted that he has the knowledge of the
enquiry on 15th June, 1981 but he was not allowed by the Security Officer. He further stated that
he made another complaint about the stoppage at the gatc by the Security Officer by any one .
The workman also admits that Ex. M -7 lears his signature at Mark " A " and he received the
charge - sheet and replied the same. The workman has admitted his correct address on Ex . M. 8 on
which he states that he received 20 letter. Prom the admission of the workman in his
examination it is clear that the workman was given the full opportunity in the enquiry . The
workman has stated in his statement that the enquiry officer did not write what the witnesses have
stated before him and he produced Shri Mangat Ram as W W - 3 , who has stated in his statement that
the enquiry officer did not write what he stated in his statement. He appeared on behalf of the
respondent in the enquiry : ut in the cross -examination he has stated that what he has stated in the
enquiry was read out to him reforc signing the same. and he signed the same. The witness bas
stated nothing and supported the respondents plea that the enquiry was proper and fair . The workman
has produced Shri Bhu Lal, WW - 22.5 his own witness who gave his affidavit Ex.W. 1 who
has stated that the claimant participated in the enquiry throughout, but he was not given the
chance of cross- examination but he has stated in the crosn - cxamination that there was no
pressure on him to sit in the enquiry on behalf of the respondent. Also admitted that Shri
Khem

Chand cross-exemined the witness and he participated in the cnquiry up to the end
on behalf of the workman . When he was not representing the workman why he participated in the
enquiry after ex parte enquiry against the workman . The witness gave no reply for the same. The
witness has further stated that the claimant signed the procoeding after reading them and also
admitting the signature of the workman and Shri Babu Lal witness which alì shows that the
proper opportuniiy was given to the workman in the enquiry and when after so many opportunitios
the workman absented ex -parte proceedings were started , becauso there was no other way to finish
the enquiry , The workman has admitted this fact that he had acknowledge of the enquiry but he
was stopped at the gate by the security officer . But he made no complaint 10 any authority or
the respondent that he was stopped at the gate and not allowed to participate in the enquiry .

In fact the charges against the workman were of so serious nature which were provod by his own
--witnesses that he attacked the commander and dis-obeyed the order of the Commander , so the
enquiry was proper and fair and the workman was given full opportunity .

The repersentative of the workman argued on this issue that as stated by the workman as WW -1
he joined the service of the respondent as Shuttleman in the yoar 1974 and drawing a

salary of
Rs. 300 per month . He recieved the charge -sheet and a letter of enquiry. He sent the letter Ex . M - 14 and

CROSS

1324

HARYANA GOVT GAZ ,, JUNE 7, 1983 (JYST 17, 1905 SAKA )

( PART I

15 and M -2 to the respondent. He claimed outsider to repersent him in the enquiry which was not
allowed by the enquiry officer . He gave list of witnesses which were not called by enquiry
officer in the enquiry and he was not allowed to cross- examine the respondent witnesses . He came
on 4th June, 1981 to participate in the enquiry but he was not allowed to go in by the security
staff . There was no dispute between me and Sbri Piare Lal. Thore are some hot words between us and he
did not attack Shri Piare Lal with a knife . The knife like Ex . M - 13 was given to the workman to cut tho
thread on the machine and which was not meant for killing a person . He did not like Shri Babu Lal as
representaive but he was sitting there by the orders of the respondent and not on bis request, as stated
by Shri Babu Lal in his statemeat. He further argued that he produced Shri Babu Lal who has stated
that he was presenting the workman on the asking of the respondent and not on the asking of Shri
Khem Chand and Shri Khem Chand was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent.
The workmin has produced another witness Shri Mangat Ram WW -3 who has stated that the
cnquiry officer did not record proper statements of the witnesses. So the workman was not given
proper opportunity in the inquiry. The charges agrir st the workman were false and there was no
fruih in the charges . It is only done to remove the workman from the job .

After Hessing the arguments of the parties and going through the file I am of the viow
that the workman was given the proper opportunity by the inquiry officer to participate in the
enquiry. He was sent iwo registered leticis in which he received one acknowledgement receipt
which bears his signalure which he admits in his cross-examination . He also admits in the cross
examination that he has the knowledge of cnquiry but he was not allowed to go inside the factory
where the enquiry proccedings were taking placo by the Security Officer but he bas further stated in
his cross-examination that he made no complaint about the stoppage at the gate of the factory by
the Sccurity Staff to any authority . So it cannot be believed that no opportunity was given to the
workman in tho enquiry . The claimant admits that there was exchange of hot words between Shri
Piare Lal and him and same fact is admitted by thc workman s witnesses that there was exchange of hot
words betweco the two which proves thc allcgation of the respondent. The workman bas not specifi
cally mentioned any fault of the enquiry officer except that he did not record the statements of the
witnesses as they have stated which was cleared by the workman s witness Shri Mangat Ram as WW -3
who has stated in his cross - examination that the statement were read out to him who admitted tho
same and signed the same which prove that this allegation of the workman is also false . So the
enquiry was fair and proper and the issue is decided it favour of the respondent and against the
workman .

Issue No. II :--

After deciding Issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent and going through the charge-sheet and
the enquiry proceedings I am of the vicw that ihere are serious charges against the claimant of
mis -conduct under the Certified Standing Orders of the Company and after the enquiry and findings of
the enquiry the respondent has rightly terminated the services of such workman , whose conduct is
not fair in the factory. Attack on the Supervisor in the factory hidders the work of the factory which
cannot be tolerated by the respondent. So he was rightly terminated by respondent after fair and
proper enquiry . So tho claimant is not entitled to any relief .

This be read in answer to this reference ,

Dated the 30th March , 1983 .

HARI SINGH KAUSHIK ,

Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Haryana

Faridabad .

Endorsement No. 688 , dited ist April, 1983.

Forwarded ( four copies) to the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryanı , Labour
and Employment Department , Char, dige rh as squired under section 15 of the Industrial Disputes
Act , 1947 .

1

HARI SINGH KAUSHIK

Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Haryana , Farida bad .