Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 274 (KAR)

Lam Research (India) Pvt Ltd. v. Abhay Magal

2023-02-15

C.M.POONACHA

body2023
ORDER : C.M. Poonacha, J. The above Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: "A) Set aside the Impugned Order 23 November 2018 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D. 29/2016, in relation to the Impugned Order ('Annexure A'); B) Answer the Preliminary Issue in the positive and thus hold that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Petitioner against the Respondnt was fair and proper and consequently issue directions to Hon'ble Labour Court, to rely on the findings of the Enquiry Committee regarding the termination of the services of the Respondent and also the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Committee. C) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem necessary in the interest of justice and equity." 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent - Workman was employed with the Petitioner - Company as "Software Product Support Engineer - I" on 13.9.2010. That in 2014 the Company began to notice a significant decrease in the work out put of the Workman as well as the change in his attitude. On 31.8.2015 the Petitioner issued a charge sheet-cum-show cause notice to the Workman. 3. On 3.9.2015 the Workman acknowledged receipt of the show cause notice and requested for additional period to submit his reply. On 16.10.2015 as requested by the Workman, the Company furnished copies of the Employees Disciplinary Action Note dated 6.5.2015 and e-mail dated 10.7.2015. On 22.10.2015 the Workman requested for a copy of the Work Performance Rules of the Company and additional time of two weeks to respond to the charge sheet. On 17.11.2015 the Company furnished a copy of the Work Performance Rules and called upon the workman to reply to the charge sheet within 7 working days. By letter dated 25.11.2015 the Workman, inter alia, sought for additional time to submit his reply. On 10.12.2015 the Company addressed a letter to the Workman notifying about the Enquiry Committee constituted and the first hearing of the enquiry. 4. On 16.12.2015 the Enquiry Committee held its first hearing and on the said date the Workman furnished a letter in the course of the enquiry proceedings as his response to the charge sheet-cum-show cause notice dated 31.8.2015 issued by the Company. On 6.1.2016 the Company notified the Workman about the second sitting of the Enquiry Committee to be held on 14.1.2016. On 6.1.2016 the Company notified the Workman about the second sitting of the Enquiry Committee to be held on 14.1.2016. On 14.1.2016 the Enquiry Committee held its second and final hearing, on which date the Workman had also submitted another letter denying the charges levelled against him. On 11.2.2016 the Enquiry Committee gave its reply and on 23.3.2016 the Company issued a letter of termination of the services to the Workman. 5. Being aggrieved by his termination, the Workman filed a claim under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ID Act') in ID No.29/2016 before the Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru, wherein the Company entered appearance and filed its response. On 23.1.2017 issues were framed by the Labour Court in which issue No.1 was treated as a preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. On 23.11.2018 the Labour Court held the preliminary issue/issue No.1 in the negative and against the Company. Being aggrieved, the Company filed the present Writ Petition. 6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner - Company that the Workman was duly notified of the charges and was given sufficient opportunity to respond to the same; that the Company being a Software Company being involved in development of software in the latest technology, the work of the Workman having been found deficient, was notified of the same; that the entire attitude of the Workman was only, on one pretext or the other, to delay the proceedings; that the Enquiry Committee had held two sitting and had considered the entire aspect of the charge against the Workman as well as the reply of the Workman before furnishing its reply to the Company; that on the basis of said report, the Company has taken necessary action i.e., to terminate the services of the Workman. That the enquiry conducted by the Company is just and proper having regard to the fact that there is no specified legal requirement as to the procedures that are to be followed while conducting an enquiry; that the enquiry conducted by the Petitioners ought not to be viewed from regular enquiries that are conducted in normal cases of termination of employee as the Petitioner being a Company engaged in development of software, the act complained of in respect of the employee is to be viewed vis-a-vis the nature of work carried on by the Company; That adequate opportunity having been given and fair procedure having been adopted in the enquiry proceedings, the finding of the Labour Court is erroneous. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that although the present Writ Petition is filed challenging the orders passed on preliminary issue, the material on record not having been appreciated by the Labour Court, the Company was justified in approaching this Court and filing the present Writ Petition seeking for allowing of the Writ Petition and granting the reliefs mentioned therein. 8. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel relies upon the following judgments: 1) Motor Industries Company, Ltd., v. D. Adinarayanappa and Another WP No.8241/1977 DD 23.01.1978 2) M/s. Triton Valves Limited, Mysore v. The Labour Court, Mysore and Another 1998 SCC Online Kar 101 3) The Management of Siruguppa Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. v. C.S. Mohan and Another 2002 SCC Online Kar 282 4) M/S. Hical Technologies Pvt., Ltd., v. Secretary, Karnataka Workers Union WP No.47425/2015 DD 19.01.2016 9. The learned Counsel for the Workman has filed his Statement of Objections to the Writ Petition. He has contended that the Writ Petition challenging an order passed on a preliminary issue is not maintainable in view of the settled law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; that the Labour Court has given detailed reasons in support of the findings which are not liable to be interfered with. He has contended that the Writ Petition challenging an order passed on a preliminary issue is not maintainable in view of the settled law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; that the Labour Court has given detailed reasons in support of the findings which are not liable to be interfered with. That the charge sheet produced was very vague; that the Workman did not have an adequate opportunity to respond to any specific charge made against him; that the enquiry conducted by the Company was not proper since nobody was examined on behalf of the Company to prove the charge and the Workman also did not have an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his case; that the enquiry proceedings were concluded in just two sittings. By putting forth the aforementioned contentions, the learned Counsel seeks for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 10. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel relied upon the following judgments: i) State of Gujarat v. R.G.Teredesai (1969) 2 SCC 128 ; ii) Union of India v. Mohd.Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588 ; iii) National Council for cement and Building Materials v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1996) 3 SCC 206 ; iv) Maharashtra State Mining Corp v. Sunil (2006) 5 SCC 96 v) State of Uttaranchal v. Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236 ; vi) Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 570 ; vii) Mrs. Janet Nancy Pereiera v. The President, The Management Committee, Christ School, Bengaluru & Ors. WP No.1714/2021, DD 16.12.2021 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 12. One of the main arguments put-forth by the learned counsel for the parties is with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition. Hence, it would be appropriate to first consider the contention regarding maintainability. 13. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in support of its contention that the Writ Petition was maintainable relied on the following judgments: i) In the case of The Management of Siruguppa Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., (Supra) a coordinate Bench of this Court was considering a case where the Management had approached the High Court against the order passed by the Labour Court wherein an issue as to whether the enquiry held was fair and proper was framed and the same was treated as preliminary issue. The Labour Court had held that the enquiry was not fair and proper. This Court, noticed various judgments including the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration (1983) 4 SCC 293 and National Council for Cement and Building Materials (supra) and distinguished the same. Upon noticing that the enquiry was held on 14 dates of hearing and despite being intimated on every date of hearing the Workman remained absent, held that the enquiry was fair and proper, allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the order of the Labour Court holding that the enquiry was not fair and proper and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for consideration of other issues. ii) In the case of Mrs. Janet Nancy Pereiera, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was considering a case where a workman was a Science graduate and working as a qualified Assistant Teacher who was dismissed from service. This Court noticed the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.P. Maheshwari (supra) as well as Harinarayana Srivastav v. United Commercial Bank (1997) 4 SCC 384 . In the said case, the Labour Court held that the Domestic Enquiry to be invalid on two grounds i.e., that the Workman had been denied an opportunity for which he had made a request and that the request of the workman for production of certain documents was not furnished by the Management. Considering the said facts, this Court upheld the order of the Labour Court and did not accept the contention of the Workman that the services of an advocate was required since the charges on all the four enquires was purely technical. However, upheld the order of the Labour Court with regard to the production of documents and dismissed the Writ Petition. iii) In the case of Motor Industries Company Ltd., (supra) a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as follows: 10. ...... By the observations made as aforesaid, the Supreme Court has certainly cautioned the High Court against interference on the decision of a Labour Court on the preliminary issue. iii) In the case of Motor Industries Company Ltd., (supra) a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as follows: 10. ...... By the observations made as aforesaid, the Supreme Court has certainly cautioned the High Court against interference on the decision of a Labour Court on the preliminary issue. But at the same time it should be noticed that the reason which prompted the Supreme Court to make the aforesaid observations are set out in the last sentence wherein it is stated that the Supreme Court was making those observations in their anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication. Therefore, it is clear that if in a given case the refusal to interfere against the order of the Labour Court is itself going to defeat the purpose for which the Supreme Court made for the aforesaid observations, it would be legitimate for the High Court to interfere even against an order of the Labour Court on a preliminary issue and particularly when the order of the Labour Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court itself. It is also significant to note that what the Supreme Court has observed is that it would be legitimate for the High Court to refuse to interfere against the order of the Labour Court on a preliminary issue if it were to result in delay in industrial adjudication and not that it would not be legitimate for the High Court to interfere in a given case even if there is justification for interference at that stage. (emphasis supplied) iv) in the case of Hical Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court interfered with an order passed on a preliminary issue passed by the Labour Court having noticed that the said finding was recorded by an erroneous consideration of facts of different cases. Hence, the same was disposed off by remanding the matter of the Labour Court. 14. Learned counsel for the Respondent while contending that the Writ Petition is not maintainable relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Council for Cement and Building Materials (supra). In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on its earlier judgments rendered in the cases of Cooper Engineering Ltd., v. P.P. Mundhe (1975) 2 SCC 661 , S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra (1983) 4 SCC 214 and D.P.Maheshwari v. Delhi Admn. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on its earlier judgments rendered in the cases of Cooper Engineering Ltd., v. P.P. Mundhe (1975) 2 SCC 661 , S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra (1983) 4 SCC 214 and D.P.Maheshwari v. Delhi Admn. (supra) In the said case the Management had raised a preliminary dispute as to whether its activities constituted an 'industry' within the meaning of the ID Act, on the basis of which, a preliminary issue was framed. The Tribunal initially heard the matter as a preliminary issue and subsequently decided to hear the said issue along with other issues on merits. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal, the Management had approached the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the order of the High Court which refused to intervene in the proceedings pending before the Industrial Tribunal at an interlocutory stage and dismissed the Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. Having regard to the aforementioned principles, it is now necessary to consider the facts of the present case. 16. The Respondent who was employed with the Petitioner was issued with a show cause notice cum charge sheet dated 31.08.2015 which was acknowledged on 03.09.2015. Before issuance of the reply, the Respondent sought for various documents from the Petitioner On 10.02.2015, the Petitioner addressed a letter to the Respondent notifying him of the Enquiry Committee and also notifying him the first date of enquiry. The enquiry committee held its first hearing on 16.12.2015, on which date, in the course of enquiry proceedings, the Respondent furnished a letter as his response to the charge sheet cum show cause notice. On 06.01.2016, the Respondent was notified that the second sitting of the Enquiry Committee would be held on 14.01.2016 and accordingly, the sitting was held on the said date. The Enquiry Committee submitted its report on 11.02.2016 and the Petitioner terminated the services of the Respondent on 23.02.2016. Being aggrieved, the Respondent filed a claim petition before the Labour Court under Section 10(4- A) of the ID Act in I.D. No.29/2016. 17. The said proceedings was consented The Labour Court framed issues. Issue No.1 as to 'whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted was fair and proper?' was treated as a Preliminary issue. 18. Being aggrieved, the Respondent filed a claim petition before the Labour Court under Section 10(4- A) of the ID Act in I.D. No.29/2016. 17. The said proceedings was consented The Labour Court framed issues. Issue No.1 as to 'whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted was fair and proper?' was treated as a Preliminary issue. 18. In support of the preliminary issue, the Petitioner examined its H.R. Manager as MW.1 and got marked Exs.M1 to M21. The Labour Court by its order dated 23.11.2018 held that the Domestic Enquiry was not fair and proper. Being aggrieved, the present Writ Petition is filed. 19. The Labour Court vide its order dated 23.11.2018 was recorded the following findings: i) That the charge sheet issued to the Workman has not been produced; ii) That the enquiry place only on two dates of hearing and day to day proceedings of the enquiry were not recorded. iii) No one represented the Management as its Presenting Officer. iv) That the members of the enquiry committee themselves cross examined the employee. v) No Articles of charge has been produced. vi) There is order by the Company for having appointed the enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry. vii) The Enquiry Committee has not fixed the enquiry dates and issued enquiry notices to the Petitioner - Company and it is the representative of the Company who has fixed the dates of hearing and issued the enquiry notices. 20. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent was duly notified of the charges against him and by virtue of the replies that he has given to the said charges, he sought to justify his actions and hence, the same is an admission of the charges made against him. 21. It is the further contention of the Petitioner that several attempts were made by the Management to aid the respondent to improve his work performance and it is upon only of his failure to improve that the show cause notice was issued. 22. Notwithstanding the merit of the charges against the respondent the process of enquiry that has been conducted by the Petitioner is required to be fair and proper and ought to have followed the principles of natural justice. 22. Notwithstanding the merit of the charges against the respondent the process of enquiry that has been conducted by the Petitioner is required to be fair and proper and ought to have followed the principles of natural justice. Although the Respondent was notified of his charges and it is forthcoming that he on one pretext or the other has delayed in furnishing his response to those charges and that he filed his reply to the charges only on 16.12.2015 i.e. the first date of enquiry date, it is forthcoming that in the enquiry conducted, apart from the three members of the Enquiring Committee, there was no other representative/s of the Petitioner-Company who participated in the said enquiry in order to put-forth the charge alleged by the Petitioner against the Respondent. Further, there is no record to demonstrate the procedure that was followed in the said enquiry proceedings. 23. The proceedings of the enquiry ought to have been conducted in a manner wherein the Petitioner-Company ought to have placed the relevant material on record to substantiate the charge against the Respondent and an opportunity ought to have been afforded to the Respondent to reply/respond to the charges made against him. Although show cause notice was issued and a response in reply to the same was filed on the first date of enquiry, it is clear that enquiry Committee consisted of on an independent member and two other employees of the Petitioner-Company. Notwithstanding the contention of the Petitioner that that the Respondent was not reporting to the two members of the Enquiry Committee who were the employees of the Petitioner-Company, it is clear that there was no representative of the Petitioner-Company who was the presenting the relevant material to substantiate the charge made against the Respondent. Further, there is no material forthcoming on record to demonstrate that the enquiry was conducted in a particular manner as to the stages of the enquiry on the repetitive hearing dates. 24. Having regard to the aforementioned, it cannot be said that the order of the Labour Court is patently illegal and perverse to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further relevant to note that the Petitioner would have an opportunity before the Labour Court to prove the charges against the Respondent. 25. It is further relevant to note that the Petitioner would have an opportunity before the Labour Court to prove the charges against the Respondent. 25. In that view of the matter, no ground is made out by the Petitioner to grant the relief sought for in the Writ Petition. Hence, the above Writ Petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. No costs.