MG. PARTNER, TEXTILE CENTRE Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER management, seeks to quash Ext. P5 award of the Labour Court, Kozhikode, setting aside an order of dismissal and directing reinstatement of the workman.

(2.) THE workman represented by first respondent union, was placed under suspension on allegations of misconduct. In due course, an enquiry officer was appointed, he framed Ext. P3 charges, held an enquiry and found the workman guilty. Eventually, the workman was dismissed from service. That led to an industrial dispute, and Ext. P5 award. The Labour Court found: "........ it is seen that the Enquiry Officer had given sufficient opportunity to the workman to put forward his case and to establish his innocence". (Underlining supplied) Yet, the Labour Court thought: "It is settled law that the management has to frame proper charges one fails to understand as to how the enquiry officer is competent to frame charges whereas his only function is to enquire into the charges framed by the management. (Underlining supplied) The order of dismissal was therefore set aside.

(3.) IN reply, learned counsel for first respondent would submit that without a proper charge, an enquiry will not be valid, and that for lack of a proper charge the entire proceedings are vitiated. According to him, the Labour Court was justified in setting aside the order of dismissal.