HARI NANDAN PRASAD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.

(2.) The services of the petitioner were terminated after holding an enquiry into the charges levelled against him by the management. On a dispute being raised by the workman, the appropriate Government made a reference of the industrial dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication in accordance with law. The management in its written statement filed before the Labour Court had taken a specific plea that in case the enquiry conducted by the management was set aside, an opportunity should be given to the management to prove the allegation of misconduct in Court. The Labour Court on 8.12.2000, passed an award holding that there was a clear violation of the principles of natural justice while holding the enquiry and the enquiry was, accordingly, set aside and as a consequence thereof the workman was held to be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back wages. On 14.12.2000, the Labour Court took up the file suo-moto and noticed that the management having taken a plea in the written statement to prove the misconduct in Court, an opportunity ought to have been given to the management to prove the same. The Labour Court, accordingly, after issuing notice to the parties directed the management to lead evidence to prove the misconduct alleged against the workman in the charge-sheet. It appears that despite number of opportunities, the management did not produce any evidence and on 12th July, 2001 when the matter came up before the Court, it was directed that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, only one opportunity is given to the management to prove the misconduct of the workman failing which the evidence shall stand closed. The management had also filed an application for review of the award dated 8.12.2000. By the same order dated 12th July, 2001, the Labour Court fixed the review application of the management for hearing on 18.9.2001. The matter for recording of evidence of the management was, however, fixed on 5th October, 2001. On 18.9.2001, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was on leave and the matter was, accordingly, adjourned to 5th October, 2001 for consideration of the application of the management for review of the award. On 5th October, 2001, when the matter came up for hearing before the Labour Court, proxy authorised representative of the management was present and the Labour Court after noticing that management's witness was not present, closed the evidence of the management and adjourned the matter to 29th October, 2001 for hearing arguments on the review application. The application of the management for review of the award was rejected by order dated 1.11.2001. On that day the management filed an application for recalling the order dated 5.10.2001 by which its evidence was closed. This application was heard by the Labour Court on 3.12.2001 and by the impugned order the Court recalled its order dated 5.10.2001 and granted one more opportunity to the management to produce its evidence on the misconduct of the worker. This order has now been challenged by the petitioner-workman by filing the present writ petition in this Court.

(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that firstly the conduct of the management did not warrant the recalling the order dated 5.10.2001 as the management was intentionally delaying the proceedings before the Labour Court and secondly there was no power in the Labour Court to review its own order dated 5.10.2001 and permit the management to lead evidence to prove the misconduct of the workman. For this learned counsel has relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi and others Vs. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji-A.I.R. 1970 Supreme Court 1273.