STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA SUCCESSOR OF BOKARO STEEL LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT AT BOKARO STEEL CITY DHANBAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), Shri Rajendra Jha, was employed as a Registration Assistant in the Medical Department of the appellant company. He was appointed by the Personnel Manager of the company and his scale of pay was Rs. 245-440. On two different dates in 1973 the Chief Medical Officer of the Hospital served two charge sheets on the respondent for alleged acts of misconduct. The Chief Medical Officer also constituted a committee to inquire into the charges. The respondent participated in the inquiry. Agreeing with the findings of the committee appearing from its reports submitted in January, 1975 the Personnel Manager of the company found the respondent guilty of the charges and dismissed him from service by his order dated March 1, 1975. On the same day an application was made on behalf of the company before the Labour Court under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking approval of the action taken against the respondent. The respondent filed a written objection before the Labour Court contending that :

(2.) During the pendency of the application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act the respondent made an application under Section 33A of the Act praying for setting aside his dismissal and for reinstating him with consequential reliefs. The two applications were taken up for hearing together by the Labour Court and on the respondent's prayer the issue as to the authority of the Chief Medical Officer to frame charges and to constitute the inquiry committee was head as a preliminary issue. On November 16, 1976 the Labour Court held that the Chief Medical Officer was incompetent under the rules to frame charges against the respondent and constitute the inquiry committee and accordingly held that the domestic inquiry was defective and invalid. The Labour Court was however of opinion that the company's case could not be dismissed at this stage and that the company should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the action it had taken against the respondent.

(3.) From the order of the Labour Court two writ petitions were filed in the Patna High Court, one by the respondent praying for quashing that part of the order which permitted the company to lead evidence in support of its action in dismissing him, and the other by the company questioning the finding that the Chief Medical Officer was not competent to frame the charges against the respondent and constitute the inquiry committee. The High Court dismissed both the writ petitions. The appeal before us has been filed by special leave by the company challenging the finding made by the Labour Court and approved by the High Court that the Chief Medical Office of the company had no authority to frame the charges against the respondent or constitute the inquiry committee and as such the procedure followed in dismising the respondent from service was bad.