ACC BABCOCK LTD Vs. BHIMSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of Counsel for parties, this petition coming up for orders is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by the following order :

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Rule was issued on 16-9-1986 to consider the short question whether the finding recorded by the 2nd respondent-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gulbarga on the preliminary issue as to the legality of the domestic enquiry held was correct or not. From the reading of the order of the 2nd respondent- Labour Court, it is clear that the Enquiry Officer has not been examined in support of the validity of the enquiry held. The holding of enquiry consisted of presenting charge-sheet, receiving explanation and then the Enquiry Officer, without recording the statement of any body either in support of the charge or examining the delinquent workman in the light of the explanation which is stated as admission of the charge, proceeded to recommend his dismissal by virtue of which the workman came to be dismissed leading to the Reference. The relevant portion of the order on preliminary issue reads thus :

(3.) This Court should have no hesitation to concur with the finding of the Labour Court. An enquiry, domestic or otherwise, is held in order to establish the guilt underlying the charge. If a person admits absence but gives reasons for his absence, it does not amount to admission of guilt It only amounts to accepting the fact of absence but under extenuating circumstances which may be justified in certain cases. A perusal of Annexure-C to the petition indicates that in 1979, the father of the petitioner had died and on account of his father's death and ill-health of his wife, he was forced to absent himself in the three periods specified.