The Management of Kulasekaram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and K. Muthaiyan

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The 2nd Respondent was dismissed by an order dated 28.02.1996 on certain allegations of misconduct after holding enquiry. In the enquiry, witnesses were examined and documents were marked.

The 2nd Respondent took up his non-employment u/s 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the 1st Respondent and the same was taken on file in I.D. No. 111 of 1997. The writ Petitioner filed counter statement repudiating the allegations made in the claim statement. Thereafter, the 2nd Respondent examined one witness and documents Exs.W1 to W48 were marked and the writ Petitioner examined one witnesses and documents Exs.R1 to R5 were marked and one document was also marked as Court document.

After hearing both sides, the Labour Court, passed an award dated 28.08.2007, holding that the enquiry was fairly and properly conducted and that the charges were not established in the properly conducted enquiry, by exercising its power u/s 11A of the I.D. Act. Ultimately, the 1st Respondent set aside the dismissal order dated 28.02.1996 and directed the writ Petitioner to pay full wages with other attendant benefits, to which, the 2nd Respondent is entitled to till the date of his superannuation as he reached the superannuation during the adjudication proceedings. The present writ petition is filed to quash the aforesaid award dated 28.08.2007 made in I.D. No. 111 of 1997 passed by the 1st Respondent.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not going into the merits of the case. The writ petition could be disposed of on the short ground that the 1st Respondent, Labour Court committed error in holding that the enquiry was fair, when the writ Petitioner did not produce the minutes of the enquiry and the documents filed therein, before the Labour Court, the 1st Respondent. Thus, the findings of the Labour Court on the preliminary issue as to the fairness of enquiry is bad and illegal.

In such circumstances, the 1st Respondent ought not to have held that the enquiry was held fairly and properly. It is not disputed by both sides that the minutes of the enquiry and the documents filed therein were not produced before the Labour Court. Thus the minutes of the enquiry and the documents filed in the enquiry were not brought on record. Hence, exercise of its power to re-appreciate the materials on record u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, would not arise without the enquiry proceedings being produced before the Labour Court. If it was not able to produce the enquiry records, the writ Petitioner ought to have given up the domestic enquiry proceedings and let in fresh evidence before the Labour Court to sustain its order of dismissal. On the other hand, the writ Petitioner sought to argue the matter as if the enquiry was conducted fairly and properly. In these circumstances, the 1st Respondent ought to have held that the enquiry was vitiated as the minutes and exhibits were not produced.

Hence, I am inclined to quash the award of the 1st Respondent dated 28.06.2007 and to remand the matter back to the Labour Court to decide the issue afresh after hearing the parties. Accordingly, the impugned award is quashed and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration of all issues. It is up to the writ Petitioner either to produce entire enquiry records including the minutes and the exhibits marked therein or to give up the enquiry and to let in evidence in support of the dismissal. The 1st Respondent is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.