Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 759 (MP)

Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Anoop Nair

2014-07-03

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2014
Judgment: K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. Smt. Indira Nair, learned senior Counsel assisted by Shri K. Rohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. Shri R.K. Verma, learned counsel appears on behalf of the applicant, who has made I.A. No. 12151/2011 to intervene in the writ petition to oppose the same. 3. This writ petition essentially calls in question the order dated 22.02.2011 passed in Case No. R/81/2000 by the Presiding Officer of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur (herein after referred to as 'CGIT'). By the impugned order, it is held by the CGIT that the domestic enquiry conducted against the employee was not proper nor valid. The case of the petitioner is that no opportunity of adducing evidence to that effect was granted to the petitioner-Management nor any evidence of the employee was recorded and such a finding is recorded. This Court while entertaining the writ petition, passed an interim order on 20.05.2011 and stayed the proceedings of the CGIT. The said order has remained in operation till now. Though the petition is formally admitted by order dated 12.02.2014 but since an application for intervention is filed by the affected employee to oppose the writ petition, the matter is posted today for consideration of I.A. No. 12151/2011. 4. It is contended by learned senior Counsel for the petitioner that intervener, the employee concerned, has nothing to do with the order passed by the CGIT and, therefore, intervention cannot be allowed to oppose this writ petition. However, on behalf of the employee concerned since the reference is made by the Employees' Association before the CGIT, the order passed against the said employee is in fact called in question in the said proceedings before the CGIT, in the considered opinion of this Court, intervener has every right to oppose the writ petition. Therefore, I.A. stands allowed. 5. Now adverting to the main relief claimed in the writ petition, in turn, learned Counsel appearing for the intervener contended that material was available with the CGIT to hold that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in appropriate manner against the said employee. However, from the proceedings of the CGIT, as are reflected from the impugned order itself, the fact remains that the evidence of the workman, the intervener before this Court, was not recorded by the CGIT. However, from the proceedings of the CGIT, as are reflected from the impugned order itself, the fact remains that the evidence of the workman, the intervener before this Court, was not recorded by the CGIT. Even if certain documents were placed on record, it was the requirement of law that such contentions or documents are proved by recording of evidence and after giving an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses by the Management, such evidence is required to be evaluated by the CGIT to reach to the conclusion whether domestic enquiry against the employee concerned was conducted in appropriate manner or not. Similarly, the employer was also entitled to grant of opportunity to show by documentary as also by oral evidence that the domestic enquiry was conducted in terms of the provisions of the law. In rebuttal, the evidence was to be adduced by the employee and then only a finding was required to be recorded. Merely because certain facts were stated, without there being any proof of the same, without giving any opportunity of rebutting the same to the employer, finding is recorded by the CGIT that domestic enquiry was not properly conducted, therefore, the same was illegal. Such findings cannot be affirmed by this Court. 6. As is submitted by learned Counsel for the parties before this Court, it would be appropriate to grant opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence with respect to the conduct of the domestic enquiry, about its validity and correctness and then to pass order on merit only after recording of the evidence of the parties. It is so necessary because for about a period of three years on account of interim stay by this Court, no proceedings have taken place before the CGIT. 7. That being so, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the CGIT is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the CGIT to record the evidence on the validity and correctness of the domestic enquiry, granting full opportunity to this effect to both the parties to adduce evidence and then to decide the said issue at the time of final disposal of the matter on merit. The CGIT will not be influenced by its findings recorded in the impugned order while taking the decision on merits of the validity and correctness of the domestic enquiry afresh. 8. The CGIT will not be influenced by its findings recorded in the impugned order while taking the decision on merits of the validity and correctness of the domestic enquiry afresh. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Certified copy as per rules.