MOTOR INDUSTRIES CO LTD Vs. D ADINARAYANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a domestic enquiry held by the management which is valid in all respects is invalid on the ground that before holding the enquiry an opportunity of answering the charges should be given to the delinquent-employee is the question that arises for consideration in this case.

(2.) The petitioner is the Motor Industries Co. Ltd., an industrial establishment within the meaning of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Management"). The 1st respondent was an employee of the petitioner-management. A charge memo dated 10-5-1974 was served on the petitioner. In the said charge memo certain alleged acts of the 1st respondent were set out and it was stated that if those charges are proved the same amounts to wilful insubordination and disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of superiors and also absence without permission from the appointed place of work and acts subversive of discipline and neglect of work. It was further stated that the above act amounts to misconduct under the company's Standing Orders 22(1), 22(18), 22(13) and 22(15). The 1st respondent was informed that an enquiry will be held by an enquiry officer appointed for the purpose on 16-5-1974 at 9 a.m. On 17-6-1974 another charge memo was served on the 1st respondent. In the said charge memo a few more acts of the 1st respondent, which according to the management, amounted to misconduct in terms of the company's Standing Orders 22(16), 22(6), 22(18), 22(4) and 22(14) were set out and the 1st respondent was informed that an enquiry will be held by an enquiry officer appointed for the purpose on 27-6-1974.

(3.) The enquiry officer held the enquiry in respect of the two charge memos in accordance with the standing orders. He recorded a finding of guilt on both the charges in the two enquiries held against the 1st respondent. The finding in respect of the charges contained in the first memo was given on 21-7-1974 (Exhibit E). The finding on the charges contained in the second memo was given on 5-8-1974 (Exhibit F). The management accepted the findings recorded by the enquiry officer on the charges mentioned in both the memos against the 1st respondent and passed an order dated 17-9-1974 (Exhibit H) dismissing the 1st respondent from service. Hereafter the State Government in exercise of its power under clause (c) of sub-s. (1) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") referred the dispute, namely, whether the management was justified in terminating the services of the 1st respondent-employee with effect from 17-9-1974, for adjudication by the Labour Court at Bangalore.