Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, O.A.A. D'Abreo, was employed as a Loader with Air India Limited from 18 December 1978. On 29 June 1986, while off-loading a dead body from an aircraft, he was observed by Head Security Guard Nain Singh inserting a saree into his trousers. When accosted, the Petitioner admitted his mistake and removed the saree. He was taken to the Security Office where he gave a voluntary statement admitting guilt, and a panchanama was drawn. He was suspended on 4 July 1986 and a charge-sheet was issued on 15 July 1986 for theft of property entrusted to Air India. The Petitioner denied the charges, alleging that Mr. Singh forcibly tucked the saree into his trousers and beat him, forcing him to sign a blank panchanama. A departmental enquiry was conducted, witnesses were examined and cross-examined, and the Petitioner was found guilty. He was dismissed from service on 12 November 1987. The Petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal initially gave a Part-I Award on 9 March 1999 holding the enquiry unfair and the charge not proved. On a review application by Air India, the Tribunal allowed the employer to lead evidence. After examining witnesses, the Tribunal rendered a Part-II Award on 10 November 2005 dismissing the Reference, relying on the Petitioner's voluntary confession and the panchanama. The Petitioner challenged this Award by way of a writ petition. The High Court held that the Tribunal's finding of guilt was based on evidence and was not perverse. The Court noted that the Petitioner's confession was voluntary and corroborated by the panchanama. The allegations of beating and forced signatures were not accepted by the Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the dismissal.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Theft by Employee - Dismissal - Enquiry - The Petitioner, a Loader, was dismissed for theft of a saree from an aircraft. The Industrial Tribunal initially held the enquiry unfair but later, after review, allowed the employer to lead evidence and dismissed the Reference. The High Court held that the Tribunal's finding of guilt based on the Petitioner's voluntary confession and panchanama was not perverse and the writ petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-10) B) Industrial Law - Confession - Voluntariness - The Petitioner alleged that his confession was obtained under duress and beating. However, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Security Guard and the panchanama witnesses, and the High Court found no perversity in this appreciation of evidence. (Paras 5-9) C) Industrial Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - The High Court in writ jurisdiction does not re-appreciate evidence unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence. The Tribunal's finding was based on evidence and hence not interfered with. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Government Industrial Tribunal's Part-II Award dated 10 November 2005, dismissing the Reference and upholding the dismissal of the Petitioner, is perverse and liable to be set aside in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's Part-II Award and the dismissal of the Petitioner.
Law Points
- Industrial Dispute
- Theft by Employee
- Dismissal
- Enquiry
- Confession
- Panchanama
- Perversity
- Writ Jurisdiction
