MANAGEMENT OF ITC LTD. MEENAKUNTE VILLAGE DODDAJALA HPOST BANGALORE - 562157 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER MR. VADIRAJ KULKARNI Vs. SRI M. KUPPUSWAMY S/O LATE MUNISWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE employer aggrieved by the order dt. 18/10/2011 in Ref. No. 24/2007 of the Labour Court. Bangalore, returning a finding in the negative over the additional issue, holding the domestic enquiry as not fair and proper, has presented this petition.

(2.) SRI . K. Kasturi, learned Sr. Counsel, submits that the State government exercising a jurisdiction under See. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short the 'Act', having referred the industrial dispute over the justification of the petitioner employer to terminate the respondent -employee, for acts of misconduct, after holding a domestic enquiry, extending reasonable opportunity of hearing, the Labour Court in the premise of pleadings of parties, framed an additional issue relating to the validity of the domestic enquiry, recorded evidence, both oral and documentary, over the additional issue, however without appreciating the legal principles enunciated in a plethora of judgments, though observed them in the order impugned. recorded unjust and incorrect findings. According to the learned Sr. Counsel, the finding on the additional issue is the sine qua non for exercise of jurisdiction of the Labour Court in the adjudication of the industrial dispute and a challenge to its correctness, at the threshold, before proceeding to adjudicate on the merit of the misconduct by directing parties to adduce evidence for the first time before the Labour Court, is permissible in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Learned Sr. Counsel hastens to add that if the order impugned is interfered with and corrected to fall in line with the established principles, inevitably, the finding on the additional issue will be in the affirmative, not necessitating the requirement to adduce evidence afresh on the misconduct, since even otherwise, witnesses for the employer may not be available for recording their evidence at this distance of time.

(3.) IN D.P. Maheshwari vs. Delhi Administration and Others AIR 1984 SC 153 the Apex Court having regard to the findings of the Labour Court on the preliminary issue, whether the terminated employee discharging duties of clerical nature fell within the meaning of the term 'workman' under Sec. 2(s) of the Act, held that in adjudication of labour disputes, delay may lead to misery and jeopardize industrial peace and hence should decide all issues in the dispute at the same time without trying some of them as preliminary issues, nor should High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Art, 226 of the Constitution of India, stop proceedings before the Tribunal so that a preliminary issue may be decided by them, tan amounting to exploitation by those who can well afford to wait to the detriment of those who can ill afford to wait by dragging the latter from Court to Court for adjudication of peripheral issues, avoiding decisions on issues more vital to them. In addition, it was held that the High Court should not be too astute to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by Special Tribunals at interlocutory stages and on preliminary issues. (Emphasis supplied)