Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur. While the workman Mukund Lal Gupta has filed writ petition against that part of the award by which he was denied 30% back wage, M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd. has filed the writ petition challenging the same award dt. 20.03.1993 by which the removal of workman has been held to be illegal and direction has been issued for reinstatement of the workman with continuity in service with 70% back wages.
(2.) Mr. Kapil Sharma, learned Counsel for the Management has argued that the learned Labour Court by its order dt. 14.08.1985 has grossly erred in holding the departmental inquiry conducted by the Management to be unfair. Subsequently, when the Management filed application before the Labour Court for review such order, it was rejected by the Presiding Officer, only on the ground that since the said order was passed by his predecessor, he cannot, therefore, open and review the same. Learned Counsel argued that this is a non speaking order and is absolutely illegal. Requirement of the law to give reasons in support thereof has not been adhered to. Learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Union of India and Ors. v. Essel Mining and Industries Ltd. and Anr., 2005 (6) SCC 676. Learned Counsel further argued that even as per the evidence that was adduced before the Tribunal, misconduct of the workman was fully proved. Learned Counsel referred to the affidavits and cross examination of witnesses Sarve Shri Benjaram, Mali Ram, SM Mathur, OP Kulshresth, Natwar Lal and Brijesh Chandra. It was argued that all these witnesses have consistently stated before the Labour Court that amount of Rs. 50/- was recovered from the table of respondent workman M.L. Gupta by Natwar Lal, Inspector of CBI. This amount was counted by S.M. Mathur. The amount was recovered from the file lying just above the rack attached to the table and that Benjaram when asked about it, he pointed out towards that file. It has clearly come in the affidavit that workman ML Gupta demanded from him a sum of Rs. 100/- for giving appointment order, which had returned back from the Personnel Department of petitioner herein sent to him under registered post and was recovered back in the Personnel department. Coming to know about the same, the petitioner approached the Personnel Department. Workman Mr. M.L. Gupta demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- and then the deal was struck for payment of Rs. 50/- only. Benjaram has further stated that he approached the CBI Officials and narrated entire story to them and it was at their instance that raid was led and the amount of Rs. 50/- was recovered which he had given to Mr. M.L. Gupta.
(3.) Learned Counsel cited the judgment of the Supreme Court State of Madras v. A.R. Srinivasan, AIR 1966 SC 1827 wherein it was held that the disciplinary authority is free to disagree wholly or partly with the Inquiring Officer since the latter acts as his delegate. When the disciplinary authority agrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority, it is not obligatory on his part to give reasons in support of the order. Where it does not agree with the findings of the Inquiring authority, it is necessary to indicate reasons for disagreement.;