AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition is filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 9.6.2000 (copy Annexure P/17) vide, which respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the workman") was held entitled to reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. It has also challenged the order dated 17.11.1998 (copy Annexure P/12) vide which issue No. 2 i.e. "Whether the management had conducted a fair and proper enquiry ?" was decided against it and the rejection of the application for summoning witnesses. Annexure P/15 dated 21.7.1999 shows that after costs were paid, statement of MW was recorded. No other/MW was present at that stage. The petitioner moved an application for another opportunity for sum-moning Mr. D.P. Garg, R.P. Sambhi and L.K. Jindal. The adjournment was opposed by the other side on the ground that it was last opportunity for the petitioner to complete the evidence on that date. It is also mentioned that the perusal of zimni order shows that the management had availed opportunities on 21.1.99, 20.4.99, 3.6.99 and on that date i.e. 21.7.99 and only one MW was produced and at that time, the petitioner wanted to produce more witnesses. The Labour Court took into consideration that the reference was very old, pertaining to the year 1994 and the management had already availed four opportunities.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the evidence was necessary for proving that the enquiry was proper. Issue regarding the enquiry being proper i.e. issue No. 2, was decided on 17.11.1998. Therefore, there was no purpose of examining the witness at that belated stage and after the issue was decided. The order pronounced by the Labour Court regarding issue No. 2 i.e. Annexure P/12 shows that it is found by the Labour Court that the Management had failed to prove that the copy of the complaint, so filed by the earlier Enquiry Officer was given to the workman or not. MW-1 D.S. Bhatia had shown ignorance in that regard. It has also observed that it was also admitted fact that no second show cause notice was given and that no sufficient grounds were made out as to why Mr. L.K. Jindal Enquiry Officer who was residing at Faridabad, was not examined. The application for examining three witnesses is dated 21.7.1999, much after the decision on issue No. 2 by the Labour Court. This shows that the application was not only given at a belated stage in the enquiry but also that it was given after the issue, for which witnesses had to be examined, was already decided. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order dated 21.7.1999. Moreover, for the reasons given by the Labour Court, we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 17.11.1998 (Annexure P/12).
Decision on the remaining issue had then become academic. When the enquiry was held to be not proper, termination cannot be justified. When it was admitted position that second show cause notice was not given and that the copy of the complaint filed by the earlier Enquiry Officer was not given to the workman, and when it was not in evidence to show that the Enquiry report was given to the workman there was no point in proceeding with the case further. Termination of the workman was illegal because of enquiry being not proper.
It is not the case where no enquiry was held and the evidence against the charge was sought to be led before the Labour Court. Moreover, it is not the case of the petitioner that the witness could prove the charges against respondent No. 2 in the Labour Court.
Courts are expected not to keep cases lingering on without sufficient cause. Hence also we do not find any error on the part of the Labour Court.
In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. This writ petition is, therefore, without merit and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.