Amitava Roy, J.
1. The subject matter of challenge, is the award dated 28.7.2006, passed by the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh, in Reference Case No. 6/2004, directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman with 50% back wages from the date of his suspension.
2. I have heard Mr. A. Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
3. The petitioner's account of the facts leading to the reference, is indispensably essential. The petitioner is the Manager (In-charge) of the Kuhum Tea Estate, owned by M/s. Barooah & Associates Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at Jorhat. The respondent-workman, who was engaged as Men Mohorar in the tea estate, was suspended on 13.1.2000 on the charge of gross-misconduct and thereafter, charge sheeted on 17.3.2001 and 15.10.2001, on the imputation of habitual absenteeism and for not occupying the tea garden quarter inspite of repeated directions. He was also arraigned for making false and baseless allegation of assault against the Manager of the tea estate.
On receipt of the charge sheet, the respondent-workman, submitted his reply and the same not having been construed to be satisfactory a domestic inquiry was initiated. After some initial defaults, the workman participated therein. Both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence. The respondent- workman was provided all reasonable opportunities for defending the charges. Eventually, the inquiry officer on the basis of the evidence on record held the charges to be proved. The management on a careful scrutiny of the materials available, dismissed the respondent-workman from service with effect from 1.06.2002. An industrial dispute having been raised following the failure of the conciliation proceedings, the Government of Assam, referred the same for adjudication by the Labour Court, Assam, Dibrugarh. The terms of reference were as hereunder:
i) Whether the management of Kuhum Tea Estate, P.O. Titabar, Dist. Jorhat are justified in dismissing their workman Shri Badan Tamuli from services with effect from 1.6.2002?
ii) If not what to relief the Workman is entitled?
4. Reference case No. 6 of 2004, was registered and the Labour Court, Assam having issued notices to the parties, they appeared and put in their written statements and documents in support of their respective stands. The management examined four witnesses. The respondent-workman examined himself and two other witnesses. By the impugned award, the order of dismissal was set aside and the workman was directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages from the date of his suspension.
5. Mr. Thakur, has argued that the respondent-workman in his written statement, having admitted the charge, the conclusion of the learned Labour Court that his dismissal was not justified, is perverse. The finding that the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jorhat, had no function to direct a workman to be punctual in his duty and that therefore, the charge No. 3, was absurd being patently erroneous and the award having been vitiated thereby, it is liable to be interefered with. The evidence adduced before the learned Court below, having conclusively established all the charges against the workman, the determination to the contrary being apparently untenable, this is a fit case for the interference of this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, he urged.
6. The scope of interference with the findings of a Labour Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, isbynow well settled. Unless, the conclusions recorded by the Labour Court are ascertained to the patently bad and against the evidence of record or suffer from obvious errors of law, the same are not liable to be overturned. A Writ Court is not supposed to exercise an appellate jurisdiction over the adjudication of the Labour Court and substitute its conclusions on a reappraisal of the recorded facts. Even, if, two views are possible on the evidence adduced and the one adopted by the Labour Court is plausible, no interference therewith, is warranted. In the above touchstone propounded by the consistent judicial pronouncements, the arguments advanced would have to be assayed.
7. As noticed hereinabove, the workman was charge sheeted twice, i.e., on 17.3.2001 and 15.10.2001. By the first charge sheet, he was charged of being habitual absenteeism, as well as late reporting for duty without the approval of the concerned authority. It was further imputed that inspite of the management's repeated requests to occupy the tea garden quarter, he did not do so. He was also accused of leveling false and baseless allegation of assault against the Manager. As the respondent's-workman's reply to the first charge sheet was not convincing, the 2nd charge sheet issued on 15.10.2001, purportedly to enable him to submit a proper reply to the charges. One more charge, however, was added to the effect that he was in the habit of demanding full wages for the period of unauthorized absence, though, his earned and medical leave had already been adjusted.
8. While, supporting the domestic inquiry, the Management in its written statement pleaded that the charges having been proved, it had no other alternative but to dismiss him from the services of the Company. The disciplinary action taken, was claimed to be valid inlaw.
9. The Assam Karmachari Sangha, Jorhat Circle, Jorhat espousing the cause of the respondent-workmen, in its written statement, while contending that he was a permanent employee of the Kuhum Tea Estate, dismissed the charges as false and frivolous. The act of issuing two charge sheets was condemned as vindictive. The order of dismissal was without proper appreciation of his reply thereto. It was asserted that the Management had failed to provide the workman a residential accommodation conforming to the prescribed standard and specifications as laid down in the Government Notification No. GLR/135/70-pt/12 dt. 25.10.1978 and instead asked him to reside in a Katcha dilapidated quarter not fit for human habitation. The Sangha maintained that the workman was also not provided with the copy of the findings of the Inquiry Officer and, the proceedings and the penalty of dismissal, was imposed on him without affording him an opportunity of hearing. The penalty imposed was also challenged to be disproportionate.
10. The Labour Court, as the impugned award reveals, had recorded that none of the parties sought to rely on the domestic inquiry and had insisted that the case be decided on merit on the evidence adduced before it. While scrutinizing the evidence in support of the charges levelled, the learned Court referring to the evidence of MW-1 Tapan Karmakar, observed that the said witness had not stated about the workman's absence without leave and that he had been warned for habitual absenteeism. The witness proved the statements of the attendance of workman for the years 1994-95, 1996-97, 1997-98, as Ext. 10,11 and 12. The award reveals that the statements of attendance were challenged by the respondent-workman, as manipulated and in support of his stand, proved Ext. A, B & C. The learned Court below noticed huge manipulations and overwritings in Ext. A, B & C, which were absent in Ext. 10, 11 & 12. It held that Ext. 10, 11 & 12, as admitted by MW-1, had been prepared from the attendance register from which Ext. A, B & C, were furnished by the garden authority to the workman. It therefore concluded that Ext. 10, 11 & 12, which did not contain any overwriting, were not authentic documents but prepared to indicate the charge of habitual absenteeism. It observed that no notice of warning had been given to the workman for the alleged defaults over the years and no pay cut at any point of time had been effected. The learned Labour Court concluded that the workman, if, absent for 240 days in the year 1998, could not have been sanctioned full pay as done. It also held the charge of absenteeism to be vague in absence of any mention of the period therefor. On the charge of making false allegation of assault, the learned Court below took note of the evidence of the workman that when he had approached the Assistant Manager, Mr. Tapan Karmakar on 5.8.2000 for his salary and payment of medical bills, the latter asked him to call the Head Clerk and in presence of the Head Clerk, the Assistant Manager assaulted him and he fell down. The other members of the staff then arrived at the scene. The evidence of MW-3, Shri Suresh Gowala to the effect that he had seen the workman conversing with the Assistant Manager and had later on come to know that the Manager had assaulted the workman, was taken note of. The learned Court below also acted on the evidence of WW-1, Shri M. N. Gogoi, the Head Mohorer of Choklating Tea Estate, Jorhat and the Vice President of the A.C.K.S., Jorhat circle to the effect that on 5.8.2000, Tapan Karmakar, Assistant Manager had not only assaulted the workman but had come to his house and on admitting his guilt requested him (witness) to effect a compromise. WW-2, Taneswar Bora, also deposed of having heard the Assistant Manager warning the workman not to inform the police of the occurrence. The learned Court below, therefore, held that the charge of leveling false allegation of assault not tenable.
11. On the imputation that inspite of several instructions the workman had not occupied the renovated garden's quarter, the learned Court below took note of the evidence of the Workman to the effect that the new quarter was also not fit or as per the specifications prescribed by the Plantation Labour Act. The corroborative evidence of WW-1, Shri M. N. Gogoi, to this effect was also recorded. The learned Court below observed that the Management was silent as to the type of quarter allotted to the workman. This charge was held to be unsustainable as well.
12. The charge of claiming full wages inspite of unauthorized absence, was also dismissed as no evidence in support thereof, was adduced. According to the learned Court below, there was no explanation for not incorporating the said imputation in the first charge sheet. Further, Ext. 10, 11 & 12 disclosed that he had been granted full pay without any objection for the relevant years. The learned Labour Court concluded that the subsistence allowance of the workman, had also not been released as the Management did not respond to the complaint to the above effect. The impugned action was also held to be unfair, as the Management failed to prove that the findings of the Enquiry 0 ffi cer and the proceedings, had been served on the workman before imposing on him the penalty of dismissal. In this regard, the evidence of MW-1 and MW-2, was also referred to.
13. The materials available, clearly proclaim that the charges had been categorically denied by the workman. The domestic inquiry was not relied upon by the Management. The approach of the learned Labour Court to examine the tenability of the impugned action on an assessment of the evidence adduced before it, therefore, cannot be said to be erroneous. Apparently, it's finding on the role of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jorhat, in directing the workman to be punctual, has no decisive bearing on the ultimate verdict. No argument has been advanced before this Court that the facts narrated in the impugned award have been wrongly recorded. The domestic inquiry not having been acted upon by the Management, the discussion and findings, vis-a-vis, the requirement of supplying the copy of the inquiry officer's report and the proceedings and an opportunity of hearing before the penalty, also do not have any relevance. The view adopted by the learned Labour Court qua the charges, as a whole, is a plausible one and based on an appreciation of the evidence adduced before it. The attention of this Court has not been drawn to any material to demonstrate the perversity thereof. Having regard to the constricted scope of interference in the exercise of this Court's writ jurisdiction, 1 do not feel persuaded to entertain this petition.
14. The decisions of the Apex Court in Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers' Union Ltd. (supra) and A.P. SRTC (supra), principally deal with the scope of interference by a Court with the quantum of punishment imposed, as a disciplinary measure. In view of the learned Labour Court's determination that the charges had remained unproved, these authorities do not advance the case of the petitioner.
15. In the wake of the above, the petition being devoid of merit, fails and is dismissed.
No costs.