Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1978 DIGILAW 126 (KAR)

T. CHOWDAPPA v. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

1978-04-21

M.RAMA JOIS

body1978
( 1 ) THE two petitioners, who were workmen. of Suryodaya Mills, Bangalore, were dismissed from service by the management with effect from 5-1-1974. On a reference made to the Labour Court, Bangalore, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court by its Award dt. 4-3-76 held that the management was justified in dismissing the petitioners from service and they were not entitled to any relief. Aggrieved by the said Award, the petitioners have presented these two writ petitions. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioners is that though they objected to the domestic enquiry held against them on the ground that it was held ex parte in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, invalid and consequently the dismissal orders made pursuant to such enquiry are also not valid, and the management also filed an application before the Labour Court to decide the validity of domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue, the Labour Court without deciding the preliminary issue proceeded to make the Award, not only holding that the domestic enqary was valid, but also that the finding recorded and penalty imposed was 'justified. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted tha the Labour court was under a duty to decide the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue, and thereafter should have proceeded to hear the parties On the merits of the case. In support of his submission he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Cooper Engg Ltd v. P. P. Mundhe, AIR. 1975 SC, 1900, on the basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, he contended, that the impugned Award is liable to be quashed, as the Labour Court failed to record its finding on the preliminary issue before proceeding to hear and decide the reference on the merits. ( 4 ) SRI S. G. Sundaraswamy, learned Counsel for respondent-2 - management submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to attack the Award on the ground that the Labour Court failed to decide the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue on account of their acquiescence. ( 4 ) SRI S. G. Sundaraswamy, learned Counsel for respondent-2 - management submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to attack the Award on the ground that the Labour Court failed to decide the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue on account of their acquiescence. He submitted that the learned Counsel for 'the petitioners who also appeared for them before the Labour Court, requested the Labour Court to decide the preliminary issue and all other issues together and, therefore, they cannot now be permitted to question the procedure adopted by the labour Court. In support of this submission he relied on the order-sheet of the Labour Court, the relevant portion of which reads as follows :" 25-11-75 I Party-present in person ii Party-Counter statement filed. Issues framed.-Documents and to hear. Call on 17-12-75. Initials PO 25-11-75. Issues.-Whether there is no industrial dispute and hence this reference is without jurisdiction? (2) Whether there was no direct demand on the managment by the I Party and hence there is no I. D. ? (3) Whether 2nd Party proves that it was justified in dismissing i Party with effect from 5-1-74? Initials PO. 17-12-75: I Party-PO is on leave posted to 30-12-75 ii Party-Manager present. 30-12-1975: I Party: Present in person ii Party: Present an application is filed requesting this Court to give a finding whether the enquiry held is fair and proper, some documents are also filed by 2nd party. To hear call on 7-1-76. Initials PO 30/12 7-1-76: I Party: Present in person and Sri MCN Advocate II Party: By Advocate 2nd Party makes an application to club reference 119 and 120/75. Call on 28-1-76 to hear all preliminary issues. Initials PO 7-1-76. 28-1-76: I Party: Sri MCN appears ii Party: By Advocate call on 29-1-76 Initials PO 28-1-76, 29-1-76: I Party: Sri MCN appears ii Party; By Advocate arguments heard and posted for Award Initials PO 29-1-76. Award passed, send copies. Initials PO 4-3-76. " ( 5 ) HE also pointed out that such a request made on behalf of the petitioners also finds a place in the Award itself. In para 3 of the Award the labour Court has stated as follows :"sri M. C. Narasimhan further submitted, that all the issues may be heard together and there should not be piece-meal hearing of the preliminary issues and other issues framed in these two references. In para 3 of the Award the labour Court has stated as follows :"sri M. C. Narasimhan further submitted, that all the issues may be heard together and there should not be piece-meal hearing of the preliminary issues and other issues framed in these two references. " ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for respondent-2 also relied on the affidavit filed, by J. Sathyanarayana, who was the manager of the 2nd respondent- mills. In Ms affidavit which is marked Annexure-1 along with the statement of objections he has categorically stated that the Counsel for the petitioners did not make a request for a decision or preliminary issue and the main issue but addressed arguments on all the issues. He has stated so, according to him, on the basis of hisi personal knowledge as he was present on all the dates of hearing before the Labour Court. ( 7 ) SRI M. C. Narasimhan submitted that two out of the three issues framed by the Labour Court were preliminary issues anjd in addition, the validity of the domestic enquiry was a third issue and all that he Requested the labour Court was to decide all the preliminary issues together. He has also filed his affidavit and has stated that he addressed arguments only on preliminary issues and the Labour Court has decided the main issue without hearing him. ( 8 ) THE order-sheet is not clear. After recording that an application has been filed by respondent-2 calling upon the Labour Court to decide the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue, there is no reference to any request or application made seeking permission, to withdraw the application. The order-sheet also does not show that any specific request was made by the Counsel for the petitioners conceding the validity of the domestic enquiry. In the absence of such, concession, the labour Court ought to have decided the validity of the domestic enquiry. The consequences which ensue if the domestic enquiry is valid is entirely different from the consequences which ensue if it is held valid. The scope of enquiry and hearing gets restricted or enlarged, respectively, as the case may be. (See motor Industries Co Ltd v. Adinarayanappa, 1978 1 Karlj, 245, 254. The consequences which ensue if the domestic enquiry is valid is entirely different from the consequences which ensue if it is held valid. The scope of enquiry and hearing gets restricted or enlarged, respectively, as the case may be. (See motor Industries Co Ltd v. Adinarayanappa, 1978 1 Karlj, 245, 254. Therefore it is impossible for the Labour Court to hear such a preliminary issue along with the main reference, as the scope of hearing and enquiry stands restricted or enlarged, depending on the finding one way or the other on the preliminary issue. Therefore the procedure followed by the Tribunal was defective and the Award cannot be sustained. In Cooper Engg Co's case (1) the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that it is the duty of the Labour court or Industrial Tribunal as the case may be to decide the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue. Therefore, I hold that the award made by the Labour Court without deciding the preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry in the firslt instance and hearing the other issues thereafter is illegal and liable to be quashed. ( 9 ) IN the view that I have taken, it is unnecessary to record a finding as to the truth of the contradictory versions as to the actual arguments that took place before the Labour Court, as Stated in the statement of objections supported by the affidavit of the Manager and the affidavit of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the rule is made absolute. The impugned Award of the Labour Court d| 4th March 1976 in Reference No. 119/75 and 120/75 (Ext. A) is quashed,. The matter is remanded to the Labour court. Bangalore, for fresh disposal in the light of the aforesaid observations. NO costs. --- *** --- .