MANAGING PARTNER SUBAIDA CLOTH STORES Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is agreed by counsel on both sides that this case is covered by the decision in O.P. 10634 of 1987.

(2.) Petitioner in this case is the Management who dismissed one of the employees viz. Sri K. Ramakrishnan, Salesman, with effect from 16th September, 1982. The dismissal of Sri K. Ramakrishnan was referred by the Government to the Labour Court, Kozhikode for adjudication. The Labour Court numbered the same as I.D. No. 10 of 1985 and tried the validity of the disciplinary enquiry as a preliminary issue. It held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management was defective, as no proper charge had been framed by the management against the workman before the dismissal, and the charge framed was very vague. Though the Enquiry Officer framed charges and examined witnesses to prove those charges the Labour Court held that the Enquiry Officer is incompetent to frame charges and hence evidence cannot be relied on. He also found that the details of the second charge were also not given. He therefore, passed an award holding that the dismissal of the workman is not proper and, therefore, set aside the dismissal order. Hence, the management was directed to reinstate the workman in service with all the benefits inclusive of backwages and continuity of service.

(3.) The purpose of the charge is to know what exactly is the case the workman has to answer. Even if the domestic enquiry is vitiated, the Labour Court has a duty to give the Management an opportunity to prove its case, provided such an opportunity is asked for before proceedings are closed. In Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Company 1979 (2) LLJ 194 in S.S.N. Goyal v. Bank of Baroda 1983 (2) LLJ 415 and in Rajendra Jha v. Labour Court, Bokaro Steel and others 1984 (2) LLJ 459 it was held that such an opportunity has to be claimed by the Management at . the earliest opportunity. In this case, it is seen from Para.5 of Ext. P-5 award that the Management has asked in the written statement for an opportunity to substantiate the charges against the workman in case the domestic enquiry is found to be defective. In the written statement filed by the management it was stated that the enquiry officer had framed charges and communicated it to the workman. The parties went for trial fully knowing what is the case they have to answer or substantiate before the Labour Court or even before the domestic tribunal.