AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—The copy of newspaper in which the notice has been published, has been brought on record. Heard Sri Gopal Narain, learned Counsel for the petitioner who submits that the Labour Court has reversed the process of procedure by passing the impugned order in relation to the domestic inquiry where the contention raised is that the inquiry was not fair and proper. He further submits that it is the employer who had to lead evidence to establish as to whether the inquiry is proper or not. The Labour Court instead of that has called upon the petitioner, who is the workman to proceed to lead the evidence.
I have perused the impugned order whereby the Labour Court has drawn an inference that since the allegation has been made by the worker, therefore, it is his duty to prove his case first.
In the opinion of the Court, a dispute is raised by way of a reference u/s 4-K and the questions of reference are framed by the Conciliation Officer whereafter the dispute is referred.
The question as to whether the inquiry is fair and proper or not has to be established on the basis of the evidence to be led by the employer who has the entire evidence in relation to the inquiry in its custody.
The workman has to contest the procedure after such evidence is led. The Labour Court therefore, has adopted a converse procedure which cannot be sustained.
Apart from this, the Labour Court further relied upon an interim order of Writ Petition No. 47659/2009 which came to be finally dismissed on 24.5.2010. The said judgment is in the case of Universal Glass Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, U.P. and Another, .
The reliance was placed by the Labour Court on an interim order. Once the writ petition has been dismissed, the interim order stands dissolved. For this reason the interim order cannot be relied on, as such the order is vitiated on this count as well. Accordingly, the order dated 7.11.2006 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the Labour Court to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner by allowing the respondents to lead evidence after putting to notice the parties in terms of Rule 13 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1947. The Labour Court shall proceed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible but not later than one year.