The Commandant vs Sukratlal

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Heard. Order dated 15.5.2013 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court is being assailed vide this petition. By impugned order, preliminary issue as to whether enquiry conducted against workman, i.e., respondent is proper and legal, has been answered in the negative and the domestic enquiry has been held to be vitiated.

Relevant facts culled out from the pleadings are that respondent was charge sheeted for unauthorized absence. Charge sheet was received by him on 12.9.1992. On the first day of enquiry, without affording an opportunity to the respondent to engage defence counsel he was examined by the enquiry officer and on the basis of alleged admission of guilt, service of respondent has been terminated. With the contention, that admission has been extracted from him for unauthorised absence he raised the dispute. Failure of conciliation led to reference to CGIT for adjudication. The CGIT while framing the issue as to whether enquiry conducted against Workman is proper and legal, allowed parties to adduce evidence. On the basis whereof, the Labour Court has arrived at a conclusion that respondent/workman was not given an proper opportunity of hearing before imposing punishment. Accordingly, the domestic enquiry has been held to be vitiated by the impugned order.

It is recorded by the Labour Court:

When statement of any witness is not recorded in enquiry and workman in his evidence has stated that the acceptance of charge was obtained from him under promise that he would not loose his service rather he had agreed to admit the charge and on said promise. The enquiry cannot be said proper. Accordingly, I record my finding on above issue. In view of my finding on preliminary issue the enquiry is vitiated. The case is fixed for recording evidence on other issues.

It is this order which is assailed by the petitioner.

It is vehemently stated on behalf of the petitioner that Labour Court grossly erred in holding that the enquiry was vitiated for want of proper opportunity of hearing to the respondent.

When called upon to establish that respondent/workman was given an opportunity of assistance of a defence counsel on the first date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner miserably fails to do so.

Since the respondent workman was not afforded an opportunity of his defence as it was his right and in absence of assistance of defence counsel, a statement has been recorded in which the workman states that the same was extracted by extending a promise that he would not loose his services the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court that enquiry recorded got vitiated and no proper opportunity of defence was given to the respondent workman, cannot be faulted with.

Even otherwise as has been held in the The Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. Shri P.P. Mundhe, , no interference can be caused at this stage in a decision on a preliminary issue in a reference matter. It is observed:

We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication the labour court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer, there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy between the parties that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the labour court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue. We should also make it clear that there will be no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the labour court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final award. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication.

In view whereof, the decision rendered in Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Another Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and Others, , the Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Karunamoy Banerjee, and The Commissioner of Income Tax Madras Vs. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons, , is of no assistance to the petitioner. Consequently petition fails and is dismissed.