The necessary and relevant facts giving rise to the present Constitutional petition are that the respondent No.2 was employed as Oil Sample Fetcher by the petitioner. He was performing the duty of Oil Sample Fetcher on 21-2-1990. It was detected that the sample, which he took at the gate from the tanker was different from the sample taken from the same'!" tanker at the time of unloading within the factory. He was accordingly asked vide show-cause notice dated 21-2-1990 to explain his conduct He submitted the reply which is appended as Annexure `B' with the petition. The explanation of the respondent No.2 was that he took the sample from the Tanker FDA--9557 at the gate and while he was on way to the Laboratory somebody changed the bottle of the sample containing cotton seed oil and he was totally non-plsus when he told Bhatti Sahib and General Manager that it is the same bottle in which he had obtained the sample at the gate. The reply was concluded with the submission that he may be excused for this mistake. The explanation was not deemed sufficient, therefore, he was charge-sheeted and ultimately dismissed from service vide order dated 4-4-1990. The respondent No.2 challenged this order through an application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. The petitioner resisted the same and it was dismissed by the Labour Court vide order dated 31-3-1991. The respondent No.2 assailed this order through an appeal before the respondent No.1, who accepted the same vide impugned order dated 17-7-1991. Hence present Constitutional petition, which was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondent No.2 was served and engaged a counsel to represent him in this petition but today nobody appeared on his behalf as well as for the respondents, therefore, they are proceeded ex parte.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition argued that the respondent No.1 proceeded on surmises and conjectures rather than evidence on record. It is added that even the reply of the worker to the show-cause notice and his statement before the Enquiry Officer were not gone into. It is added that in order to ward off any possibility of substandard oil being supplied the petitioner has made arrangement for obtaining samples at three stages. The first sample was obtained at the gate but since there was possibility of the staff entrusted this duty of mixing up with the supplier of the oil, therefore, the practice was to obtain other samples by other staff at the time of unloading of the oil. In this case the sample which was taken by the respondent No.2 was found at variance with the samples obtained at the time of the unloading of the oil tanker, therefore, a show-cause notice was issued to him. He clearly admitted that the sample in his possession does not tally with the sample obtained at the time of the unloading and his explanation was that the sample which he had obtained at the gate was changed by somebody. The arguments are concluded with the submission that the question for determination was whether the defence plea of the respondent No.2 was plausible while the respondent No.1 set aside the order of the Labour Court on the basis that the oil might have been adulterated or changed after the tanker entered the factory premises. The arguments are concluded with the submission that this was not even the case of the respondent No.2.
3. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. It is relevant to refer to reply to the show-cause notice before proceeding any further. The same reads as under:-- The next relevant factor is the statement of respondent No.2 recorded before the Enquiry Officer, which reads as under:-- Now as against this clear contention, of the respondent No.2 the respondent No.1 proceeded to strike down the order of the Labour Court. The operative portion of the judgment of the respondent No.1 reads as under:-- " -----Since the second and third samples were taken after the tanker was brought into the factory and this is not the case of the respondent nor there is any evidence that it was the duty of the appellant to take care of the tanker up to the time the remaining two samples were taken, the possibility cannot be excluded that after the appellant had taken the sample, the oil was removed and used or adulterated oil was put into the tanker. The appellant was not responsible for any adulteration made after he had taken the sample. This is not the allegation that the appellant had actually not taken the sample from the tanker and the sample produced by him was fictitious----- -"
I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the respondent No.1 are based on surmises and conjectures and it is not possible to uphold the same in view of the defence of the respondent No.2. It is pertinent to mention here that at no stage the respondent No.2 even made a suggestion that there was a possibility of adulterating or changing the oil from the tanker after it had entered gate. This apprehension is just creation of the mind of the respondent No.1 and not supported by the facts on record. It is already case of non-reading of material evidence on record.
4. The upshot of this discussion is that the petition is allowed with no order as to costs. The result is that the order of the Labour Court dated 31-3-1991 is restored and the grievance petition of the respondent No.2 is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.