VERMA V K Vs. HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Shri V. K. Verma was working as a Steno 'c' under the respondent Management, the Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, Pinjore. During the course of his employment the appellant workman absented from duty unauthorisedly on January 30, 1985 after launch break without leave/permission. Again on February 13, 1985 he absented from duty without leave or permission between 2. 45 P. M. and 3. 45 P. M. The next day i. e. on February 14, 1985 he again left office after lunch break without obtaining any permission of his controlling officer or without applying for leave. The Management decided to charge-sheet him as the unauthorised absence from duty from the place of work amounted to misconduct under the Standing Orders. The Management served charge-sheet dated March 6, 1985, a copy of which has been filed as Exhibit M-1. Even in the past, the appellant workman had been warned for being habitual absentee from the place of work without leave or permission in November, 1982, August, 1983 and June 1984. He had been advised for negligence of duty vide letter dated August 18, 1984. The charge-sheet, thus, included four instances including the past instances which amounted to misconduct under clauses 21. 106, 21. 122 of the Standing Order applicable to the appellant-workman. The appellant was asked to submit his explanation by March 16, 1985 as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him for the said misconduct. The appellant submitted his explanation dated March 16, 1985 but the Management was not satisfied with the explanation and decided to hold departmental inquiry against him. Shri A. S. Kahlon, Personnel Officer (E) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Shri G. S. Khandewal, Deputy Controller of Accounts was appointed as the Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer after completion of the enquiry submitted his report dated November 19, 1986. According to the report of the Enquiry Officer, all the charges levelled in the charge sheet against the appellant were found proved against him. The competent Authority, Shri T. S. Narayanan, General Manager, Finance (A) after appraisal of the enquiry report was of the view that the workman deserved to be dismissed from service and he ordered accordingly by his order dated February 25, 1987. Since, some proceedings were pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, in reference No. 30 of 1986, the Competent Authority ordered that while communicating the order of dismissal, one month's wages i. e. Rs. 1,327. 10 ps. as required under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act 1947) be tendered to the workman and simultaneously an, application be sent to the Industrial Tribunal for approval of the action taken. He directed Shri G. S. Khandewal, Asstt. General Manager, Accounts (T) to communicate this order and to comply with the formalities. Accordingly, Shri Khandewal intimated the decision of the' Management as aforesaid vide registered A. D. Letter, dated February 28, 1987, addressed to the appellant workman. A copy of which has been filed along with the copy of the order of, the competent Authority as Annexure P-1 with' the writ petition. A pay order No. 699598/25/87, dated February 28, 1987 for Rs. 1327. 10 p drawn on United Commercial Bank HMT Pinjore was tendered along with the, letter Annexure PI. The application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act 1947 was sent by the Management on February 28, 1987 by post to the office of the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad where it was received on March 2, 1987. The Tribunal entertained the application of the Management and issued notice to the workmen i. e. the appellant who appeared before the Tribunal and filed his reply raising objection, inter alia (i) that he had not been given one, month's wages; (ii) no show cause notice was' given to hun before passing of the order of his' dismissal from service; (iii) Enquiry Officer was not an independent authority in the se" that he was junior in status in comparison with the Presenting Officer; (iv) Principles of natural justice were not observed during the enquiry and (v) he was not given a chance to cross-examine the Presenting Officer.

(2.) APART from it, he cited instances of mala fide on the part of the Management and took a plea of double jeopardy in asmuchas his wages for absence from duty were deducted by the Management and for the same action he has been punished with the dismissal from service. While quoting the instances of mala fide against the Management the appellant alleged that he, along with other workers had filed a Civil writ. Petition No. 5086 of 1986 in the High Court Chandigarh for scrapping E. S. I. Scheme Since the Management did not implement the order passed by the High Court in the said writ petition, a contempt petition was filed against the Management in the High Court. The petitioner along with other workmen filed another C. W. P. No. 1065 of 1987 in the High Court for the grant of special casual leave for June 21, 1986 i. e, Haryana Bandh and the Court had issued notice of motion to the respondent -HMT Limited and others, on February 27, 1987. These actions be the petitioner and other workmen prompted the Management of HMT, Pinjore to act hastily and to victimize the workman for petty charges which even on proof did not warrant dismissal from service. He further alleged that this is an example (where utter disregard of principles of natural justice had been shown by the Management an (it is also an act of unfair labour practice.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following issues :-