Filing False Case Of Assault Against Senior Manager By Employee Amounts To Misconduct: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has confirmed an order passed by the labour court dismissing an employee of a private company on the grounds of misconduct after it was proved that he lodged a false complaint of assault against the senior manager of the company.Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde dismissed the petition filed by G Mahesh and said, “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, more particularly, considering the fact that the petitioner is differently abled, with less employment opportunities, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be awarded a compensation of Rs.4,00,000. In exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India respondent is directed to pay Rs.4,00,000 to the petitioner, confirming the order of dismissal.” The workman was placed under suspension on 02.02.2009, and later a chargesheet was issued on 06.02.2009. In the chargesheet, the respondent---the Management of M/s Teknic Euchner Electronics Pvt Ltd, had referred to the incident dated 16.01.2009, alleging that the workman had in chamber of Mr. Kennedy, himself inflicted the injury on his head with a paper weight and fell unconscious and later, lodged a complaint with the police (on the same day in the evening after being discharged from the hospital) against Mr. Kennedy, alleging that Kennedy assaulted him. The charge levelled against the petitioner was of attempting to malign the Officers of the Company and disorderly or indecent behaviour in the premises of the Company. Willful or irresponsible action resulting in damage to the Company's reputation and falsifying evidence. A domestic enquiry was conducted. However, in the midst of the enquiry, the workman disrupted the proceedings and did not cooperate for a smooth enquiry and for this reason, the enquiry was abandoned, and later the respondent- Management imposed a penalty of dismissal, holding that all charges were established. The same was referred to the labour court, which held that the charge relating to a false complaint is established. The Labour Court also held that the petitioner had interfered in the disciplinary proceeding and upheld the penalty of dismissal by rejecting the Claim Petition. The same was challenged in the High Court.BackgroundThe petitioner argued that the alleged assault by the petitioner on himself is not established, and in fact, it was Kennedy who assaulted the petitioner. It was claimed that no eye-witness was examined to prove the charges. Domestic enquiry was abandoned in the middle, and any evidence led in said domestic enquiry cannot be looked into to establish the alleged misconduct. Moreover, the finding of misconduct by the disciplinary authority recorded in respect of the alleged disruption in the domestic enquiry is without any charge memo or enquiry.The respondent opposed the plea, submitting that the Police submitted a 'B' report holding that Kennedy had not assaulted the petitioner and the petitioner had assaulted himself; the same is not challenged. Even assuming that the domestic enquiry was inconclusive, as it was abandoned in the middle, the evidence was led before the Labour Court to show that the 'B' report filed by the Police is not challenged and is accepted by the petitioner. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that the 'B' report establishes the fact that the petitioner has lodged a false complaint and the finding that the petitioner has filed a false complaint is sufficient enough to impose a penalty of dismissal from service, is the submission on behalf of the respondent. The bench noted that it was true that there was no charge relating to the disruption of the domestic enquiry and threat to the witnesses, and the order of dismissal is also based on the alleged disruption in the domestic enquiry. It referred to the Apex Court judgment in the case of The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs The Management and Ors. and Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (Private) Limited vs Motipur Sugar Factory. Then held, “The Labour Court is competent to try the issues based on the pleadings before it. In such an event the parties are entitled to lead evidence on the matters in controversy. This being the position, the lapses or shortcomings in the domestic enquiry are cured in the fresh trial conducted by the Labour Court.” Refusing to accept the reasoning of the labour court on denying the occurrence of the incident of assault the bench said, “This Court is not convinced about the reasoning of the Labour Court in observing that "it is not at all possible and probable for M.W.1 to drag W.W.1 and then assault him on his head with the paperweight that too in his chambers". The said conclusion is not supported by any acceptable reasoning, moreso in a situation where the petitioner is admittedly a differently abled person.” Also, the Labour Court had held that what happened in the chamber of Kennedy is visible outside the chamber, and the workers outside the chamber would have...

Filing False Case Of Assault Against Senior Manager By Employee Amounts To Misconduct: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags