Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 818 (KAR)

Yathiraju v. Management of MLC Industries Limited

2018-07-23

RAVI MALIMATH

body2018
ORDER : RAVI MALIMATH, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as a Welder-cum-Fabricator with the 1st respondent. Based on certain acts of insubordination an article of charge was issued. The same was replied to. Being dissatisfied, an enquiry was held. Charges were proved. He was dismissed from service. A dispute was raised before the Labour Court. By the impugned order, the reference was rejected. Hence, the present writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is bereft of any reasons except stating that the Labour Court does not find any error or any mistake in the enquiry report no other reasons have been assigned. Therefore, the matter would have to be sent back for a re-appreciation of the material before the Labour Court. The same is disputed by the respondents. They submit that it is the burden of the workman to plead his case before the Labour Court. He having failed to do so, no fault cannot be found with the Labour Court. Hence, they plead that the petition be dismissed. 3. On hearing learned counsels, I' am of the considered view that appropriate relief is called for. 4. I have considered the impugned order. The Labour Court has stated that having considered the material, it does not find any reason to interfere. Except saying so, there is no application of mind to any of the material produced before it. It would appear more to be a general remark made. There is no reflection that the Labour Court applied its mind to the material on record. The Labour Court would have to indicate as to what prevailed upon it to accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer. When the material evidence has been led-in, he would have to justify as to whether the enquiry report is in tune with the facts and circumstances or would have to give reasons as to why it has rejected the application. Merely stating that it has looked into the report of the Enquiry Officer and the same is in accordance with the principles of natural justice is not sufficient. Under these circumstances, Earn of the view that the same requires to be re-considered by the Labour Court. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Merely stating that it has looked into the report of the Enquiry Officer and the same is in accordance with the principles of natural justice is not sufficient. Under these circumstances, Earn of the view that the same requires to be re-considered by the Labour Court. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 5th October, 2009, passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru, in I.I.D. No. 35 of 2001, vide Annexure-E is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Industrial Tribunal for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 20th August, 2018 without any further orders. Both counsels submit that they will not seek adjournment in the disposal of the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal is directed to take up the case on a day today basis and complete the same within a period of two weeks thereof.