The Management of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited vs Smt. G.N. Rama Rao

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—This writ petition is filed calling in question the order dated (04.11.2003 and award dated 18.05.2005 in reference No. 39/2000 paused by the Labour Court at Bangalore.

the Respondent was an employee of Petitioner''s establishment. For misconduct of unauthorised absence articles of charges were issued, enquiry was held and on 23.03.1996 an order of dismissal came to be passed. Aggrieved by this order of dismissal, the Respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court in reference No. 39/2000 u/s 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In addition to the points of reference, the Labour Court framed an additional issue relating to domestic enquiry and the same was treated as preliminary issue. on this preliminary issue, both the parties adduced evidence and produced certain documents. The Labour Court by order dated 04.11.2003, held the domestic enquiry as not fair and proper. Thereafter, the matter was listed for recording evidence on the charges levelled against the Respondent At that stags, Respondent filed an application u/s 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming relief u/s 17(B) of the Industrial Disputee Act.

After hearing both the parties, the Labour Court by order dated 07.07.2004 directed the Petitioners to pay waged to the Respondent u/s 17(B) of the Act. Since the Petitioner failed to comply with order u/s 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, Labour Court struck down the defence of the Petitioner by order dated 18.10.2004. Subsequently, on 07.12.2004, the Petitioner complied with the order of the Labour Court u/s 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act and paid the entire arrears. The Labour Court without considering the payment of the wages by the Petitioner, proceeded to decide the matter by only accepting the version of the Respondent and same has resulted in passing of the impugned order. Hence the Petitioner is before this Court questioning the order on preliminary issue and also the main award.

I heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

The Labour Court recorded evidence on preliminary issue relating to domestic enquiry. The Labour Court noticed that in the enquiry proceedings, Respondent was not furnished with the copy of the documents, the list of witnesses, relied on by the Petitioners The documents produced by the Petitioners on the preliminary issue do not disclose that the copies of the documents were furnished to the Respondent, In the circumstances, the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry as not fair, proper and valid. The finding of the Labour Court is supported by evidence on the record. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the order on domestic enquiry. Therefore the first prayer of the Petitioners to quash the order on domestic enquiry is liable to be rejected.

It is settled position of tew that if domestic enquiry is not fair and proper than an opportunity is to be provided to the employer to prove and establish the charge. In the instant case when the casts was set down for recording evidence on the charge the Respondent workman filed ass application for interim relief u/s 17(b) of the I.D. Act and the same came to be allowed directing the Petitioner to pay interim relief. For non-compliance of the order on interim relief the labour Court by order dated 18.10.2004 struck down the defence filed by the Petitioner. Thereafter the Petitioner paid the interim relief in compliance of the order of Labour Court. But unfortunately Petitioner has not brought to the notice of the labour Court about the payment of interim relief. Even the Respondent workman who has received the interim relief failed to report to the labour Court In the circumstances the labour Court did not had the knowledge of payment of interim relief. By only accepting the version of the Respondent the labour Court passed the impugned award holding that the charge levelled against him as not proved. In the circumstances the impugned award is liable to be set aside and an opportunity is to be provided to the Petitioner to prove and establish the charge levelled against the Respondent.

However it is brought to my notice that the Respondent is going to attain superannuation shortly, Keeping this in mind a direction is required to be issued to the Labour Court to expedite the matter and to complete the proceedings within a time frame of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order on day-to-day basis. Till the termination of the proceedings before the Labour Court, the Petitioner shall continue to pay the interim wages as ordered by the Labour Court.

For the reasons stated above, the following,

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is partly allowed.

(ii) The writ petition, insofaras it relates to the order on domestic enquiry dated 04.11.2003 is hereby dismissed.

(iii) The writ petition, insofaras it relates to award dated 13.05.2005 is hereby allowed and the award of the Labour Court is hereby set aside.

(iv) The matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law by providing an opportunity to both the parties and on day to day basis and not later than two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

(iv) It is made dear that both the parties are not entitled for further notice from the Labour Court and they shall appear before the Labour Court on 01.10.2011.

(v) Till the termination of proceedings before the Labour Court, the Petitioner shall continue to pay interim wages to the Respondent and costs of Rs. 5,000/ - in this writ petition.