AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the award dated 04.10.2008 passed in I.D.No.23/2001.
The petitioner was working as a driver in the respondent-Corporation. On the allegation that the petitioner had caused the accident due to his negligence, an Article of Charge dated 19.07.1997 was issued and on establishing the charge in the domestic enquiry, the dismissal order dated 18.12.2000 was passed. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved was before the Labour Court in I.D.No.23/2001. Since the action against the petitioner was preceded by a domestic enquiry, the validity of the domestic enquiry as to whether it was fair and proper was considered through the preliminary issue. The Labour Court by the order dated 26.03.2007 held the issue in the negative holding the domestic enquiry held was not fair and proper. On the enquiry proceeding being held invalid, in a normal circumstance, the respondent-Corporation was required to establish the charge afresh before the Labour Court.
In the instant case, the respondent-Corporation did not choose to tender any fresh evidence. However, the petitioner herein examined himself as WW1 to contend that the action taken against the petitioner amounted to victimization. The Labour Court ultimately while arriving at the conclusion has once over again considered the evidence which has been tendered by the respondent-Corporation before the Enquiry Officer and has arrived at the conclusion that the claim petition is liable to be rejected. It is in that view, the petitioner is before this Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.
A perusal of the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal in Para 10 of the award would disclose that all that has weighed in the mind of the Labour Court is with regard to the accident having occurred on 14.07.1997 and the death of the pillion rider of the Scooter having taken place. It is no doubt true that the accident had occurred. However, if any action is to be taken against the petitioner who was then driving the bus by treating it as a misconduct, it was also required to establish that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the petitioner and in that light, it was to be considered as to whether the action was justified. While taking note of that aspect of the matter, the Labour Court has arrived at the conclusion that the driving by the petitioner was rash and negligent by taking note of the evidence which had been tenders on behalf of the respondent-Corporation before the Enquiry Officer. As notice the validity of the domestic enquiry had been set aside and if that be the position, the law is well settled that the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer would remain non-est and the very same evidence which had been relied thereupon and the documents which had been marked by the respondent-Corporation to establish the validity of the domestic enquiry cannot be looked into by the Labour Court once over again to arrive at its conclusion unless the respondent Corporation had tendered the evidence afresh before the Labour Court to establish the charges. Therefore, if that be the position, the very manner in which Labour Court has proceeded further in the matter would not be justified.
Though the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation seeks sustain the action of the Labour Court by referring to the observations made by the Labour Court on Issue No. 3, with regard to the involvement of ti petitioner in causing the fatal accidents on earlier occasions, the earlier instances can only be taken into consideration for imposing the punishment the present charge is established. Therefore the same cannot be an independent material unless the present charge of causing accident due to rash and negligent driving is established afresh before the Labour Court.
Though at the first instance, the respondent had not availed the opportunity to tender evidence, in the interest of justice, I am of the opinion that an opportunity is to be provided to the respondents to tender evidence afresh before the Labour Court and the Labour Court should thereafter consider the matter in accordance with law.
To enable the same, the award dated 04.10.2008 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, to restore I.D.No.23/2001 on file. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court without issue of fresh notice on 25.01.2016 as the first date of hearing; thereafter the Labour Court shall regulate the proceedings and dispose of same as expeditiously as possible. Further the Labour Court shall provide opportunity to the parties to tender evidence afresh and come to a conclusion in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties are left open.
The petition stand disposed of accordingly.