P. Jagmohan Reddy, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by Special Leave against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad which reversed the judgment of a Single Bench of that Court and restored the award of the Labour Court by which respondent Hans Nath Srivastava, a Complaint Attendant/Driver who had been dismissed on the 26th June, 1965 was directed to be reinstated.
(2.) The second respondent was working in the Mains Department of the appellant Company and was authorised to deal with live wires. By an office order dated 4th May, 1964 the appellant, after drawing attention of all the workers to a previous notice issued on 23rd March, 1962 they were again warned that no person who is not authorised under the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 is permitted to claim a ladder where he may come in contact with live lines. On the 31st October, at about 1.30 p.m. on the complaint of a consumer, the second respondent accompanied by two coolies, Shankar Das and Jagdhari, went in a Jeep to set right a fuse on the electric transmission line of the appellant at Mohalla Shivpuri. At that time, the Resident Engineer and the Assistant Resident Engineer Chakraborti were returning from Babatpur and when they reached the spot where the second respondent and the coolies had come to put the fuse right, they saw that a ladder had been placed against the electric pole which was being held on the ground by Jagdhari. On the top of the ladder was Shankar Das who was trying to replace the fuse with a wooden stick. They found Srivastava standing near the Jeep some 10 or 12 yards away. When the Resident Engineer and the Assistant Resident Engineer found Shankar Das, who was not authorised to work on the live line, repairing the fuse, they stopped and questioned them. Inasmuch as under the office orders only an authorised person could attend to any complaint involving live wires and fuse etc., the Resident Engineer questioned Shankar Das as also the respondent Srivastava, and immediately suspended both of them. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was served on Srivastava on 2nd November, 1964 in answer to which he gave an explanation on 5th November, 1964. The Resident Engineer finding the explanation unsatisfactory appointed the Labour Officer on 11th November, 1964 to conduct a domestic inquiry. Before the Inquiry Officer, evidence of the employers and the workmen concerned was recorded and he found that Srivastava was guilty of the charge. The report was accordingly submitted to the Resident Engineer who after persuing the findings of the Inquiry Officer and considering that the misconduct was of grave and serious nature, decided to dismiss him from the employment of the Company. As at time there was a dispute pending between the employees and the appellant Company and also because Shrivastava was a protected workman, a petition to dismiss him was filed before the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad on 28th November, 1964. The Industrial Tribunal accorded sanction on the 9th May, 1965 and on 26th June, 1965 respondent Srivastava was dismissed. An industrial dispute was raised in respect of this dismissal which was referred to the Labour Court on 27th November, 1965.
(3.) The Labour Court after inquiry held that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the appellant undertaking and that the inquiry by the Inquiry Officer was not defective inasmuch as it was constituted by a competent authority, nonetheless it came to the conclusion that the finding was perverse and there was victimisation. In this view, the order of dismissal was set aside. The Judge of the Labour Court gave the following reasons for his conclusions:- "I am fully convinced, after going through the statement of Shri Chakraborti, Shri Hans Nath Srivastava and Shri Jagdhari coolie that Shri Shanker Das had gone up the ladder on his own accord to replace the fuse or to find out whether the stick which was in his hand was of sufficient length to serve the purpose, soon after Shri Srivastava had stopped the Jeep just near the pole ......... The Enquiry Officer should not have placed implicit reliance upon the solitary statement of Shri Chakraborty but must have subjected his statement to a careful scrutiny in the light of the defence evidence and the surrounding circumstances which could be of great help in ascertaining the truth. After giving my most anxious thought to the entire evidence which was before the Enquiry Officer, I find it difficult to arrive at the conclusion that the guilt has been brought home to Shri Hans Nath Srivastava (workman concerned) for disobedience of the office order Ext. E-16. The finding of the Enquiry Officer is not, at all, justified from the evidence on record and as such can be classed as perverse".;