K S R T C Vs. BASANGOUDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent in the Appeal was employed by the appellant, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, as a conductor. It was alleged that he has committed certain acts of misconduct. A domestic enquiry was held. The findings thereon resulted in his dismissal from the appellant's service. He thereupon raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was referred to the Labour Court, Hubli, (2nd respondent) for adjudication. The appellant filed before the Labour Court an objection statement which justified the order of the dismissal that was passed. The 2nd respondent held on 30th April. 1988 the domestic enquiry to be unfair and improper. Thereafter the matter was posted for arguments. It was adjourned on five occasions. The arguments of the learned Advocate for the 1st respondent were heard. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application to be permitted to file additional objections as under:

(2.) The order of the 2nd respondent rejecting the application to file additional objections as also the Award were challenged by the appellant in the Writ Petition. The learned Judge, as aforesaid, rejected the Writ Petition.

(3.) It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the second respondent had been in error in rejecting the application of the appellant to file further additional objections and, thus, in preventing the appellant from leading evidence be-fore the 2nd respondent to prove the misconduct alleged against the first respondent and justify Supreme Court in Rajendra Jha v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dharwad AIR1984 SC 1696 , 1984 (32 )BLJR384 , [1984 (49 )FLR346 ], 1984 LablC1583 , (1984 )II LLJ459 SC , 1984 (2 )SCALE245 , 1984 Supp(1 )SCC520 , [1985 ]1 SCR544 , 1984 (2 )SLJ352 (SC ), 1985 (17 )UJ141 (SC ). This was a case that related to an application filed by the employer under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking approval of the Labour Court to the order of dismissal passed against the employee and it was found that when the hearing of the application under Section 33(2)(b) was nearing completion, but before the final order was passed thereon, the employer asked for an opportunity to lead evidence to justify the order of dismissal. The Labour Court then held by a common judgment that the departmental inquiry was vitiated but that employer should be allowed to lead evidence to justify the order of dismissal. In the first place, this judgment was delivered in the context of Section 33(2)(b). In the second place, the employer asked for an opportunity to lead evidence before the Labour Court held upon the validity of the departmental inquiry.