MGMT OF WELCOMEGROUP WINDSOR Vs. M S SUBBAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was an employee of the petitioner which is a hotel industry. He raised an industrial dispute against the petitioner in reference No. 170/1987 under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the act') alleging that his services were terminated w. e. f. September 18, 1985. The parties appeared before the labour court, Bangalore, and filed their respective claim and counter statements. Consequently, the labour court framed issues and treated the question of fairness of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue. In support of their case, the petitioner examined one witness on the issue of validity of the domestic enquiry. However, the respondent examined himself and two witnesses both in regard to the validity of the domestic enquiry and also the settlement dated April 1, 1986. However, both the parties addressed arguments on the issue of validity of domestic enquiry. When the matter was posted for further arguments on October 7, 1998, the ' petitioner counsel realising the mistake that he had not cross-examined the respondent on the question of fairness and legality of the domestic enquiry, made an application under Section 11 r/w Section 151 of the C. P. C. Along with the memorandum of facts stating that ww1 was not cross-examined on the issue of validity of domestic enquiry and requested the court to recall the respondent for further cross-examination. The respondent herein filed objections resisting the application filed by the petitioner which are at annexures b and a respectively in this petition. On October 20, 1998, the matter was heard on the said i. A. By the labour court and reserved for orders on i. A. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time for passing orders i. e. On November 7, 1998, December 15, 1998, January 8, 1999 and February 1, 1999. In support of this, the copy of the order sheet is produced at Annexure c. On February 2, 1999 the labour court instead of passing orders on la. Dated October 17, 1998 to recall the respondent for cross-examination, passed the order on the preliminary issue, i. e. On the issue of validity of domestic enquiry holding that the domestic enquiry held against the respondent is not valid and proper as per Annexure d. Subsequently on March 10, 1999 when the matter was set down for evidence on merits after setting aside the domestic enquiry by the labour court, the counsel for the petitioner filed yet again an la. Under Section 11 r/w Section 151 c. p. c. , praying the labour court to recall the order dated February 2, 1999 and also for permission to recall ww1 for cross-examination on the issue of validity of domestic enquiry. A copy of the application and also the objection statement by the respondent is filed as per annexures e and f. After hearing the arguments, the labour court rejected the application filed by the petitioner dated March 10, 1999 vide order dated August 16, 1999, confirming the earlier order of the labour court on the issue of validity of domestic enquiry passed by the previous officer dated February 2, 1999. A copy of the order dated August 16, 1999 is as per Annexure g. Being aggrieved by this order dated February 2, 1999 and August 16, 1999 the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a mistake committed by the court in view of the fact that without disposing of the i. A. Filed by the petitioner to recall the respondent for further cross-examination on the validity of the domestic enquiry, has passed orders on the domestic enquiry itself, thereby denying an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent. It is a bona fide mistake on the part of the labour court which ought to have been corrected in view of the subsequent application filed by the petitioner to recall the order holding that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and should have allowed the application to recall the respondent with a view to give an opportunity to cross-examine.