The Management of Bosch Ltd. vs Vijaya Bhaskara D.A.

A.S. Bopanna, J.—1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 7.2.2015 and 1.10.2015 at Annexures-E and K to the petition. The petitioner has raised a dispute with regard to his dismissal which is being considered in ID No. 38/2012 before the II Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore. In the said proceedings, the issue relating to the validity of the domestic inquiry was considered as a preliminary issue. By the order impugned dated 07.02.2015, the domestic enquiry is held as not fair and proper. The said order is assailed and while doing so, the petitioners have also assailed, the subsequent order dated 01.10.2015 by which the Labour Court had rejected the application whereunder the petitioner management had sought to recall the order dated 07.02.2015.

At the outset, it is to be stated that the subsequent order would lose its relevance at this juncture since what is necessary to be taken into consideration is the validity of the order dated 7.2.2015. Having noticed that the order dated 7.2.2015 is on the preliminary issue relating to domestic enquiry, in a normal circumstance, this Court would not have entertained a writ petition of the present nature, in view of the position of law as has been explained by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration, , AIR 1984 SC 153). However, the instant case would require consideration to some extent for two reasons. Firstly the unfortunate death of the Enquiry Officer who had been examined as MW. 1 led to the present situation wherein a confusion is created. Secondly the unfortunate part is the manner in which the Presiding Officer has written the order sheet dated 27.1.2015 which makes it impossible for any other person to decipher the same.

In any event, the fact as to whether the enquiry has been conceded or not as contended by the learned senior counsel need not be gone into at this juncture since the fact that there were two domestic enquiries and at this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that the concession made was only with regard to one of the enquiries wherein the workman had the benefit and the Enquiry Officer was one Sri Ravi appears to be the more probable position. In that light, the question is with regard to the manner in which the Labour Court has proceeded with the matter. For the said purpose, the earlier order dated 21.01.2015 would become relevant. For better appreciation, the same is extracted:

''The learned counsel for the II party submits that enquiry officer is no more. The presenting officer is left the company and he is working somewhere. Hence it is not possible for him to bring him before the court well within time.

The learned counsel for the I party submits that he has no objections to mark the documents produced by the II party with regard to the domestic enquiry. His submission is recorded. Hence the question of cross-examination of MW. 1 does not arise. Accordingly, the matter is posted for hear on Issue No. 1 by 27.1.2015."

From a perusal of the same, it would indicate that the fact of the death of the Enquiry Officer who had been examined as MW. 1 had been recorded therein and in that light, it has been stated that the cross examination of MW. 1 does not arise. Before stating so, it is also recorded that the first party submits that he has no objection to mark the documents produced by the second party with regard to the domestic enquiry. By the said fact, the documents relating to the domestic enquiry would stand marked and the documents would be available for the purpose of being looked into by the Presiding Officer before coming to a conclusion on the validity of the domestic enquiry. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view and order dated 7.2.2015 on domestic enquiry i.e., issue No. 1 is taken into consideration, it is seen that the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has set aside the domestic enquiry due to the reason that MW. 1 has not been cross-examined and also WW. 1 had not been cross-examined.

While taking note of the validity or otherwise of the enquiry, the documents relating to the enquiry such as order sheet etc., is what is required to be looked into in the present circumstance when the order dated 21.01.2015 as recorded by the Labour Court has become final and the marked documents are available. The marking of the documents by consent would remain on record and therefore, the documents as marked were required to be looked into. Therefore, only to the said extent, the order impugned would have to be faulted for the faulty procedure that had been followed by the Labour Court in ultimately coming to the conclusion that, the domestic enquiry is bad for not producing MW. 1 for cross-examination. To the said extent, the order will have to be set aside, but on terms. I am inclined to impose some costs in this regard more particularly taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that there was delay caused by the petitioner-management even earlier to the order being passed by the Labour Court.

Therefore, in a circumstance, where procedural irregularity/committed by the Labour Court is taken note of which would effect the right of the party and in that circumstance when the order is set aside and liberty is to be granted to the petitioner to put forth their contention with reference to the documents that were marked to establish the validity of the enquiry. The opportunity in that regard is to be availed within the time frame to be granted by this Court and also on payment of costs in that regard. Needless to mention that in so far as the interim relief that has been prayed by the respondent, it is stated that an application has been filed before the Court below and in that regard, it would be for the Court below to consider the same in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the parties. Therefore, insofar as the present issue relating to domestic enquiry, the order dated 7.2.2015 is set aside. The Labour Court is directed to take note of the documents which have been marked, provide opportunity to the learned counsel for the parties and pass fresh orders on preliminary issue relating to domestic enquiry, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the next date of hearing when the certified copy of this order is furnished to the Labour Court. The petitioner-management shall pay the cost of Rs. 25,000 to the respondent-workman before the Labour Court on the next date of hearing. All contentions of the parties are left open.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.