AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
It is very unfortunate case where by the act of the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent, an Industrial Dispute relating to non employment for the petitioner has been kept pending for the last 14 years, without reaching any finality.
Curiously, in this Writ petition, the petitioner, who is the workman, has come forward to challenge an order passed in an interim application in I.A.No.59 of 2007 in I.D.No.27 of 1997 dated 21.10.2008.
By the impugned order, the first respondent / Labour Court, Madurai had received additional counter statement filed by the management. Even though it was filed belatedly after a period 10 years, the Labour Court rejected the petitioner''s objection stating that receiving such a written statement will cause prejudice and it should not be entertained. But, the Labour Court held that the matter has been kept pending for the last 10 years, without being heard and if the worker is so aggrieved, he can file a rejoinder to the additional counter statement and thereafter, the I.D. can be proceeded and in the interest of justice, the additional counter statement should be received.
Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ petition came to be filed and the matter came up on 30.03.2009 it was adjourned. Subsequently, on 06.07.2009 notice of motion was ordered. When the matter was further listed on 05.01.2010, this Court suggested an amicable settlement between the parties and for that reason it was adjourned. It was also sent for Mediation and Conciliation. However, there is no compromise was possible and it has come back.
The contention made by Mr.R.Ramasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Labour Court ought not have received the additional counter statement after a period of 10 years and it was only with a view to drag on the proceedings. In reception of the document at that stage is against the provisions of the law and after thought by the management.
Per contra, Mr.L.M.V.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent after referring to the affidavit filed in support of the interim application stated that they oversight the additional counter statement and additional list of documents could not be filed and though in the counter statement, they have set out the reason for non employment of the petitioner and the list of documents were furnished. The subsequent enquiry conducted in respect of charge sheet dated 14.02.1997, 18.06.1997 and 29.01.1998 for his continued absence could not been filed. He was also dismissed for that reason and since these facts are not brought to the notice of this Court they had come forward to file the application to receive the additional counter statement.
The said application was taken on file as I.A.No.59 of 2007 and notice was ordered to the petitioner / workman and the petitioner workman filed a counter statement dated 18.07.2007 stating that the I.D. is pending from 11.07.1997 onwards and instead of mentioning these facts in the counter statement at the time of filing proof affidavit, they should not file such a document and in stead of revoking the termination, suspended the petitioner, in which event they will have to pay subsistence allowance and the management is adopting the new technique.
But, a perusal of the notes paper produced along with the impugned order shows that for some reason or other, the matter has been kept pending and the diary event of the case starting from 10.07.2007 has been produced, which shows the continued delay of the dispute. Even though in the Industrial Disputes Act, Section 10 provides that non employment issued will have to be resolved within 3 months by the appropriate Labour Court. In the present case, the conduct of parties and also by the frequent changes of the Presiding Officers, the matter could not reach its finality.
But, the short question that arises for consideration, whether the impugned order passed by the Labour Court suffer from any material irregularity, which requires an interference by this Court at this stage.
After the introduction of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court have been given the power like an appellate authority and the Court has power to go into the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence let in by the management in the domestic enquiry. In a given case the Labour Court can also reappreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion. The proviso to Section 11-A makes it clear that in such circumstances, the Labour Court by rely upon the materials on record.
The true scope of Section 11-A came to be considered by the Supreme Court vide judgment in The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. The Management and Others, . The Supreme Court held that even where a dismissal of a workman by a employer on the ground of misconduct is preceeded by a proper and a valid domestic enquiry. Section 11-A empowers the Labour Court to reappraise the evidence and examine the correctness of the evidence therein. Section 11-A also empowers the Labour Court to interfere with the penalty. But, at the same time, the Court also held that mere fact that no enquiry or a defective enquiry has been held by the employer does not by itself render the dismissal of the workman illegal. The right of the employer to adduce evidence justifying his action for the first time, in such cases are not taken away by the proviso to Section 11-A.
In the light of this fact when the employer has been given a power to lead even fresh evidence in case of no enquiry or a defective enquiry, the petitioner''s objection to the Court receiving an additional counter statement does not have any legal basis. Of course, he may be prejudiced by the prolonged trial for which one has to blame the system and not any one of the parties particularly.
Under these circumstances, the Labour Court was right in receiving the additional counter statement with liberty to the petitioner to file any rejoinder to the same and thereafter to proceed with the hearing. In the present case, this Court did not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Labour Court. The Writ petition is liable to be dismissed. At the same time, for dragging the matter for more than a decade and half, the sufferings that has gone through by the petitioner even though this Court is inclined to dismiss the Writ petition. But, however, inclined to impose cost on the management for filing a belated additional counter statement.
The impugned order does not say that the Labour Court took into account the suffering of the workman for over 10 years and it had merely allowed the application, without putting the management on terms.
The writ petition is dismissed. However, the 2nd respondent / management is directed to pay Rs.5000/- as cost to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Since the dispute of the year 1997 and more than 14 years have gone by, the 1st respondent / Labour Court is directed to give preference to the disposal of the petition and in any event disposed of the same within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order after due notice to both sides. Both parties are directed to give full cooperation for the disposal of the I.D.