CHANDAN SINGH Vs. MANAGEMENT OF SWATANTRA BHARAT MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Since short question is involved in the matter, with the consent of the parties the matter is taken up today and finally disposed of at this stage.

(2.) Petitioner was charge-sheeted and an enquiry was held. After the enquiry, Enquiry Officer gave its report holding that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. Consequently, respondent-management passed an order dated 28th July, 1982 dismissing him from service. Petitioner filed complaint under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) in already pending reference, submitting that he dismissal was in contravention of Section 33 as approval of the Industrial Tribunal was not taken before dismissing the services of the petitioner. On the complaint filed by the petitioner, the Labour Court framed preliminary issue as to whether enquiry conducted against the petitioner was valid and proper. On this issue, evidence was recorded by both the parties and ultimately vide order dated 31st October, 1995 Industrial Tribunal held that enquiry conducted by the management was fair, valid and proper and the preliminary issue was decided against the petitioner-workman. Thereafter the Industrial Tribunal proceeded to decide the complaint filed by the petitioner and impugned award dated 6th February, 1996 was passed by the Industrial Tribunal holding that although there was violation of provision of Section 33 of the Act by respondent-management inasmuch as approval was not sought but it was only a technical violation. It was further held that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Beverages Private Limited v. Suresh Chandra, reported in 1978 (2) SCC 144, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief wherein it was held that the enquiry conducted by the respondent-management was proper and valid.

(3.) In this writ petition, petitioner challenges the findings of the Industrial Tribunal in respect of preliminary issue relating to fairness of the enquiry as well as impugned award dated 6th February, 1996. It is a submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that on 18th May, 1981 when the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner was beaten up and was forcibly made to sign the enquiry proceedings.Petitioner made complaints against that on l9th May,1981 and thereafter on 25th September, 1981. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that after the aforesaid episode on 18th May, 1981 if the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings and the allegation of the petitioner was that Enquiry Officer was biased against the petitioner and was not following the principles of natural justice, absence of the petitioner was justified and such an enquiry conducted was clearly in violation of principles of nature justice.