GOVINDRAJU Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner who was a driver with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, has presented this challenge to an order passed by the Labour Court at Mysore dated 23rd July, 1998 whereby the Court has upheld an order of dismissal passed against the Petitioner. The Corporation had charge sheeted the Petitioner under three heads which are reproduced below:

(2.) THEREAFTER , the proceeding continued and both the parties led evidence before the Labour Court. The Court evaluated the evidence that was produced before it and recorded the finding that the charges were serious, that the charges were held to have been established and that consequently, the order of dismissal was fully justified. It is against this finding that the present petition has been presented.

(3.) MR . Menon, learned Counsel for the Corporation has vehemently submitted that it is almost routine for the Labour Court to record the preliminary finding that the enquiry was not fair or that the enquiry was bad and to thereafter rehear the case on merits and it is his submission that in a case such as the present one where both the parties have led the entirety of the evidence that it is the material that was before the Labour Court that is required to be looked into. Alluding to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Firestone case reported in , the learned Counsel submitted that invariably pieces of evidence etc. are incomplete or get left out and that in the interest of justice the Supreme Court has held that it is permissible when the proceeding is reagitated before a judicial authority for fresh or additional evidence to be led in the interest of a fair decision. His basic submission was two fold, the first being that where the charges have been served on the employee that it is as clear as day light to him as to what precisely are the allegations or imputations and secondly that when the enquiry is held that he is more than aware of what is the oral or documentary evidence which the Corporation is marshaling against him to prove the charges. Mr. Menon submitted that while it is true that the imputation of allegations or charges is required to be served on the employee, that the non -service may not cause any prejudice to an employee in a given case and he was at pains to demonstrate that if the lapse is only technical or procedural which has not resulted in substantial prejudice or injustice that this can be treated as a curable infirmity. Essentially, he submitted that the corporation has produced evidence before the Labour Court as also before the Enquiry Officer which has proved the charges to the hilt on facts and he submitted that once this has been done, that since the Petitioner has virtually no defence on merits, that he is seeking to take shelter on technicalities. Effectively, what was contended was that in a case of the present type where both the parties have led complete evidence before the Labour Court that the Petitioner was not in any way disadvantaged and that consequently, the ground of procedural non -compliance is not sufficient to vitiate the finding of the Labour Court.