M.D. Beshettiyavar vs The Managerment of Mruthunjaya Vidya Peeta

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the award dated 26.08.2006 passed in KID No. 58/97.

The petitioner herein was working as a First Division Assistant in the respondent-Institution. On certain charges being alleged against the petitioner, an enquiry was held and thereafter he was dismissed from service on 26.05.1997. The petitioner raised a dispute which ultimately was referred to the Labour Court, Hubli, in KID No. 58/1997. The Labour Court at the first instance had considered the validity or otherwise of the departmental enquiry held against the petitioner. By its order dated 21.05.2002, the said issue was answered in negative thereby holding that the departmental enquiry held was not fair and proper. In that view, the respondent-management tendered fresh evidence before the Labour Court by examining the witnesses at M.W. 2 to M.W. 4 and 28 documents were marked. The petitioner examined himself as WW1. Subsequent thereto, the Labour Court has considered the matter on merits and rejected the reference. It is in that view, the petitioner is before this Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers as also the records received from the Labour Court.

A perusal of the award of the Labour Court would indicate that the learned Judge after having extracted the Articles of Charge has only taken note of the fact that certain serious charges were alleged against the petitioner. Thereafter except for referring to the fact that M.W. 2 to M.W. 4 were examined and a perusal of their evidence would establish the charge and that in an educational institution some amount of discipline is expected from the employees has arrived at its conclusion to reject the reference. The position of law is clear that when an award passed by the Labour Court is assailed in a writ petition, this Court would have to consider the same to find out as to,

"i) Whether there is any perversity in the conclusion reached by the Labour Court?

ii) In the said exercise, it is to be noticed as to whether the Labour Court has considered the evidence available before it or considered some material which was not available before it in evidence and as to whether the conclusion reached would appeal to a reasonable person?"

In the instant case, as noticed, the departmental enquiry had been set aside by the order dated 21.05.2002. It is in that view, the evidence had been tendered before the Court below by examining M.W. 2 to M.W. 4 which has been noticed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has also indicated that 28 documents have been marked in evidence and the employee was also examined as WW1. In that light, a perusal of the award would indicate that the consideration made by the Labour Court is only to the extent as found in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the award. Except for indicating that a perusal of the evidence of M.W. 2 and M.W. 3 and the supporting documents clearly demonstrates indifferent attitude of the first party which is unbecoming, has not referred to the evidence that was actually tendered by M.W. 2 and M.W. 3 and the manner in which the documents indicated that the charge was proved. There is no reference to the evidence of M.W. 2 and M.W. 3 in detail nor has the evidence of M.W. 4 and WW1 been considered at all by the learned Judge.

That apart, what is also necessary to be noticed is that Ex. M8 is another Charge Sheet which had been issued alleging further misconduct stated to have been committed by the petitioner. The consideration by the Labour Court does not refer to the charge therein except for indicating the gist of the charge as having been admitted by the petitioner, which is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In such circumstance, when the Labour Court has not referred to the evidence that had been tendered before it and more particularly in a circumstance when the validity of the departmental enquiry was held in negative, the award passed in such casual manner without analysing the evidence tendered afresh cannot be upheld by this Court. Since it has been noticed that the Management as also the employee had tendered evidence before the Labour Court and the said evidence has not been considered by the Labour Court, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Labour Court.

In that view, the award dated 26.08.2006 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Prl. Labour Court, Hubli, to restore KID No. 58/97 and reconsider the matter fresh. Considering that the dispute has been pending for a long time, the Labour Court in all probabilities shall dispose of the matter within an outer limit of six months. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court without further notice on 27.02.2015 as the first date of appearance. Registry to return the records to the Labour Court.

With the above said directions, the petition stands disposed of.