BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the validity of the finding on an issue entered by the labour court in reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') is questioned in these writ petitions. The facts of the case are that pending adjudication of a dispute before the labour court the services of the workers in question were terminated. As required under Section 33(2xb) of the act the management applied to the tribunal for approval of the action taken. The tribunal examined the question as to whether the approval be granted. In doing so it examined the question whether there had been a proper enquiry and whether the charges against the workers had been proved prima facie. The tribunal found that there was a proper domestic enquiry and that the charges had been proved. It also held that the dismissal was not an act of victimisation. It therefore granted permission to the management to dismiss the worker. Subsequent thereto an industrial dispute was raised by the worker under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act with reference to the termination of their services and the dispute was referred to the labour court, in that reference a preliminary issue was raised in the following terms: "whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the second party is fair, reasonable and valid in law"? The labour court after hearing the respective parties held that there was no valid domestic enquiry, and that the enquiry officer was biased against the worker. It therefore called upon the management to substantiate the charges. It is this finding that has been challenged by the employer in these writ petitions before this court.

(2.) before we advert to the question of law raised the following factual details may also be noticed. In writ petition No. 15900 of 1994 the allegation was that the worker committed theft and the serial application No. 49 of 1974 was filed for approval to impose the punishment of dismissal. Annexure-B is the order passed by the labour court granting permission. In that proceedings the worker had disputed the fairness of the domestic enquiry. The main contention was that the enquiry officer himself had cross-examined the witness. The contention was adverted to but overruled by the labour court (vide para 7 of Annexure-B order). It further held (at para 9) that the domestic enquiry held is fair and proper. Accordingly serial application was allowed.

(3.) likewise in writ petition No. 17531 of 1994 Annexure-C is the order is serial application No. 85 of 1975 filed by the management seeking approval of its decision to dismiss the employee. Therein also the worker disputed the fairness of the domestic enquiry conducted by the employer. Annexure-B is the order on the question of domestic enquiry in serial application No. 85 of 1975 upholding the validity of the domestic enquiry. Similar contentions, namely, that the enquiry officer allegedly cross-examined the witnesses etc., Were the ground of attack against the domestic enquiry. This contention was also overruled by the labour court (vide at para 8 of Annexure-B order while upholding the validity of the domestic enquiry.