Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1682 (RAJ)

J. K. Cement Works v. Chhote Lal Partani

2014-10-15

PRAKASH GUPTA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. By this special appeal, the appellant-employer has challenged the order dated 2.1.2014 passed by learned Single Judge, by which he held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the respondents-workmen was vitiated, inasmuch as, despite the request of the respondents-workmen for providing copies of the complaints, which were in English language, to be given to them in Hindi language, the appellant-employer, after having provided the copies of the complaints in Hindi, completed the domestic enquiry and prepared the enquiry report in English language. The appellant-employer did not provide the enquiry report translated into Hindi language to the respondents-workmen. Since the respondents-workmen were not highly educated, they were unable to understand the findings of the enquiry officer, which vitiated the entire enquiry. 2. Learned Single Judge, after recording the findings that the domestic enquiry was vitiated and that the Labour Court rejected the objections of the respondents-workmen regarding the conduct of the domestic enquiry on a very flimsy grounds, allowed the writ petition and set aside the Award dated 1.5.1997. With this result, learned Single Judge directed that the respondents-workmen be allowed all the service benefits as if they had remained in service of the appellant-company. He, thereafter, having regard to the facts and circumstances, directed that the respondents-workmen will be entitled for 50% of the back wages. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-employer submits that the domestic enquiry was held in a just, fair and proper manner, the charges were established against the respondents-workmen, they were given the copies of the complaints in Hindi language and that the entire enquiry proceedings were conducted in Hindi language, which was not disputed by the respondents-workmen. They did not demand copy of the enquiry report to be translated in Hindi language. The Labour Court had recorded the finding that there was no breach of the principles of natural justice in the domestic enquiry. It also found that the charges were duly established against the respondents-workmen. 4. They did not demand copy of the enquiry report to be translated in Hindi language. The Labour Court had recorded the finding that there was no breach of the principles of natural justice in the domestic enquiry. It also found that the charges were duly established against the respondents-workmen. 4. After going through the findings recorded by learned Single Judge, we are prima facie of the opinion that in case learned Single Judge was of the view that the copy of the enquiry report was not provided to the respondent-workmen in Hindi language and thus the domestic enquiry was not held in just and fair manner, and in breach of the principles of natural justice, he should have after setting aside the Award, remanded the matter to the Labour Court to allow the employer to prove the charges in the Labour Court by leading evidence, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh ( AIR 1972 SC 1031 ) and Karnataka S.R.T.C. v. Laxmidevamma ( AIR 2001 SC 2090 ) , which continues to be law applicable to the domestic enquiry in the Labour Courts. 5. Learned Single Judge has not recorded any finding that the entire domestic enquiry was vitiated on any substantial ground or that the charges were not found proved against the respondents-workmen. The only ground on which the domestic enquiry has been held to be vitiated and interference was made with the award of the Labour Court, was that the enquiry was not conducted in just, fair and proper manner, principles of natural justice were not followed and that the enquiry report in Hindi language was not given to the respondents-workmen. 6. We find that learned Single Judge has grossly erred in law in failing to remand the matter back to the Labour Court, after holding that the domestic enquiry was vitiated on the ground that the enquiry report was not given to the respondents-workmen in Hindi Language. 6. We find that learned Single Judge has grossly erred in law in failing to remand the matter back to the Labour Court, after holding that the domestic enquiry was vitiated on the ground that the enquiry report was not given to the respondents-workmen in Hindi Language. In such case, after recording the finding that the enquiry was vitiated being not held in just and proper manner, he was required to send the matter back to the Labour Court where the employer would get a chance to establish the charges against the respondents-workmen by leading evidence and or removing the defects in the domestic enquiry. The employer would in such case get an opportunity not only to establish charges, the Labour Court in such case will also allow opportunity to the respondents-workmen to satisfy the tests of the principles of natural justice. 7. We do not find any error in the findings recorded by learned Single Judge. His conclusion that the domestic enquiry was not held in fair, just and proper manner as the principles of natural justice were not followed does not require interference. We, however, find that the operative portion of the order of learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and thus while allowing the Special Appeal partly and to the limited extent that the writ petition was allowed in toto, we remand the matter back to the Labour Court to decide the industrial dispute raised before it in accordance with law. Since the appellant-employer has demanded opportunity to establish charges against the respondents-workmen by leading evidence, while serving the principles of natural justice, we allow the appellant-employer and direct the Labour Court to permit the appellant-employer to lead evidence and to establish the charges conforming to the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court will decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today. 8. The special appeal is allowed to the above extent.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******